BS: Harry Duke of Sussex

Subject: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: Senoufou
Date: 11 Jan 23 - 11:56 AM

I'm very tired of the endless comments by Harry (his book plus his interviews etc.) It seems he has no idea of keeping his mouth shut about private and personal events. It must be very disturbing for the royal family. But I suppose he's making a mint of money out of it all.
I'm trying to see his side of things though. It seems he's been through some very difficult times. Anyone else got opinions about him?

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jan 23 - 12:00 PM

A friend of a friend of a friend (no name, no pack drill) is close to him and regards him as "thick." I know there's stuff going on but I haven't got the slightest interest in any of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 11 Jan 23 - 12:11 PM

Senoufou, you've bought into the party line, I fear. He's entitled to tell his story over here without his family feeding tidbits to that toxic business you call "the press." They've done everything they can to warp what he has said by way of pushback and leaks before the publication date. I suppose we wouldn't care as much except that an American actress who has a good heart and always had good intentions was ground up and spit out by the press in the process. Racism is a big problem and there's no denying it any more.

That treatment of Meghan and Harry is totally unacceptable and now the truth is coming out. Too bad. The royal family is in for a rough year, brought on by their own bad behavior and tolerating the relationship with that toxic media.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jan 23 - 12:31 PM

Spot on with your analysis, Maggie. The only thing you missed out is that Harry and Meghan will be crying all the way to the bank....

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 11 Jan 23 - 12:52 PM

They won't be getting any more cash from dad, might as well earn some here. The Netflix program was very well made, very clear, and of course it was their point of view, as is this book. Now people have to decide who to believe.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Jan 23 - 12:55 PM

I kinda like him.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Jan 23 - 02:05 PM

Very sad. Damaged and lashing out. I can't see a happy outcome.

One glaring lesson for parents, always put on your seat belt.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: meself
Date: 11 Jan 23 - 02:22 PM

I love this: we can gossip and cast judgement in the most vicious manner about another family without any fear that they will be able to get back at any of us!

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 11 Jan 23 - 03:44 PM

Choosing sides. Just the way the media like it and the royal family hopes for. The press managed to kill Lady Di; Harry got out before they got Meghan. You decide who the enemy is here.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Jan 23 - 03:54 PM

I really do not know very much about him, he doesnt come to my gigs, but then I dont go to his either. As far as i know he does not visit mudcat, i dont believe he is one of those unpleasant anonymous guests.
so i hope he has a healthy new year

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: fat B****rd
Date: 11 Jan 23 - 04:00 PM

There was a huge outcry about that posh lady asking a coloured lady where she came from but Jeremy Clarkson's article saying Meghan Markle should be covered in excrement seems to have been largely ignored. Having said that, the assorted persons involved in all this may as well live on the Moon for most of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: Charmion
Date: 11 Jan 23 - 04:40 PM

Poor ol' Harry reminds me of that famous cavalry officer who was so dim the others noticed. He did okay in the Army, not least because he knew exactly what to do most of the time, but the modern armed forces have no place for someone who can't be treated just like all the others of his rank and capabilities. A century and a half ago, the Prince Imperial of France (also a spare) could go off to Zululand with the British Army and get himself killed without causing an international incident, but that's not an option for Harry.

If only he knew how to do something genuinely useful, like framing carpentry.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Jan 23 - 04:47 PM

Lady Di died because she got in a car with a drunk driver, and failed to wear her seatbelt. A sad and stupid death. And it's still having sad and stupid results. The background then and now is a toxic tabloid industry, nourished by a toxic public appetite.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jan 23 - 04:47 PM

I think Diana was actually killed by a pissed chauffeur, Maggie...

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jan 23 - 05:26 PM

I don't know if "nourished by a toxic public appetite" is right, Kevin. No one I know is in the slightest bit interested in the ginger whinger or his toxic family. I think the frenzy is being created and fed by the media itself. Probably to detract from the real issues with the economy and the NHS created by the Tory party who, in turn, are in the pocket of the media barons.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Jan 23 - 05:36 PM

After hearing evidence at the British inquest, a jury in 2008 returned a verdict of "unlawful killing" by driver Henri Paul and the paparazzi pursuing the car.[4] The jury's verdict also stated: "In addition, the death of the deceased was caused or contributed to by the fact that the deceased were not wearing a seat belt and by the fact that the Mercedes struck the pillar in the Alma Tunnel rather than colliding with something else".[5]
Steve, the jury gave 3 causes
if the driver was pissed you would have thought she would have

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: The Sandman
Date: 11 Jan 23 - 05:39 PM

continued
1. Refused to let him drive
2. worn a feckin seat belt
by not wearing a seat belt and allowing him to drive she was partly responsible for her own death

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: Charmion
Date: 11 Jan 23 - 05:51 PM

As McG says, the Princess died a stupid death, which is sad.

My Dad used to say that stupidity is often a capital offence.

And it happened in 1989. Everybody eventually has to face bereavement and learn to live with it, princes of the blood not excepted.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 11 Jan 23 - 05:51 PM

Being pursued by the press at a high rate of speed, the whole thing was a dreadful tragedy. But the high speed drunk driving wouldn't have happened without the press.

The estimations of his intelligence seem to come from a time when he became a public figure target-wise for the press and at an age when "young" and "stupid" tend to go together. People do grow out of that on occasion.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jan 23 - 06:14 PM

1997, Charmion.

The man driving her was drunk and 'twas he who crashed the car. lt's rather odd to conclude that a following car could be blamed. Had he slowed down, they would have slowed down. We don't like tabloids, we don't like sensationalist press reporting and we don't like paparazzi. But natural justice dictates that we blame only those who are genuinely to blame. We are not lynch mobs who condemn people purely because we don't like them. The papparazzi, detestable though they might have been, did not set out kill Diana. Reckless though their actions were, they were nowhere near as reckless as the drunk man who got behind the wheel.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 11 Jan 23 - 07:06 PM

Cause and effect. The reason for fleeing, the reason for the speed, were the paparazzi in pursuit. If I recall, even on motorcycles, for christsake.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jan 23 - 07:13 PM

Drunk driver, judgement compromised. He was the one who was responsible for the accident. Suck it up, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 11 Jan 23 - 08:17 PM

No. And your rude rejoinder to get up the nose of anyone you disagree with is not appreciated. Logic is part of this, and while the courts probably couldn't act against the journalists, common sense says they are at the heart of that problem. It was, as the saying goes, a series of unfortunate events that put her in a drunk driver's car when fleeing the paparazzi.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jan 23 - 08:39 PM

I'm not at all clear how I was being rude, Maggie. The fact is, whether you like it or not, a drunk driver crashed the car she was in. Dunno about you, but as a sober driver I would have made a very different decision as to how I would have handled the paparazzi in the rear view mirror. I mean, I'd love to blame the press for her death. The facts dictate otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: Charmion
Date: 11 Jan 23 - 10:33 PM

The cause of Princess Diana’s death is less important than Harry’s apparent inability to find something constructive to do with his life.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: The Sandman
Date: 12 Jan 23 - 02:21 AM

no Steve they do not , the facts were
a jury in 2008 returned a verdict of "unlawful killing" by driver Henri Paul and the paparazzi pursuing the car.[4] The jury's verdict also stated: "In addition, the death of the deceased was caused or contributed to by the fact that the deceased were not wearing a seat belt and by the fact that the Mercedes struck the pillar in the Alma Tunnel rather than colliding with something else".[5]
Steve, the jury gave 3 causes, furthermore we do not know how drunk or intoxicated the driver was

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Jan 23 - 02:53 AM

Yes we do, Dick. From BBC news -

"The Paris public prosecutors' office said in a statement: "The blood analysis revealed that the alcohol level was illegal."

Analysis indicated that Mr Paul had 175 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood, compared with the legal limit of 50 milligrammes per 100 millilitres. The level equates to his having drunk more than a bottle of wine.

Under French law, blood-alcohol levels of between 50 and 80 milligrammes per 100 millilitres are regarded as a misdemeanour; levels over 80 are a crime. Levels vary throughout Europe. In the UK, there is a single limit of 80 milligrammes per 100 millilitres."

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: Senoufou
Date: 12 Jan 23 - 02:57 AM

I have every respect for the Sussex's 'point of view', and I'm sure both have undergone some very difficult times. Losing ones mother at the age of twelve and having to walk behind her coffin in a cortege under full scrutiny by the press, for example, must have taken its toll on Harry's mental health. I also do not doubt that there were some dubious, racist misgivings about Meghan's heritage by certain members of the Royal Family.
However, I do feel there has been too much coverage over Harry's book and interviews etc. - page after page in the newspapers and online. And I'm sure money is at the root of it.
I actually feel that the Monarchy has had its day and should be dismantled as an anachronism.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: The Sandman
Date: 12 Jan 23 - 03:02 AM

thanks, but none of that alters the fact that the jury found 3 causes of death.
The causes of death were three fold, furthermore Diana could have found another chauffeur, under the circumstances of escaping paparazzi, she decided to either not use another driver or not notice the driver was intoxicated.
to say the cause of her death was because the driver was pissed is an over simplification

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Jan 23 - 03:08 AM

I have not the slightest interest in the antics of a dysfunctional family of over-privileged, scrounging misfits. I agree with Sen, it’s time this anachronism was dismantled and for us to be free of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: The Sandman
Date: 12 Jan 23 - 04:34 AM

I agree with you, a President would be a much cheaper option

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Jan 23 - 05:25 AM

I’d very happily go with a President based on the Irish model - a figurehead for state occasions, with no political role. But a US-style President? Fuggeddit!

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: The Sandman
Date: 12 Jan 23 - 05:43 AM

no. i was thinking of an irish style president
Salary Michael D. Higgins. President - Ireland. Born: 1941 Ireland. Annual: €249,014.00; Monthly: €20,751.17; Weekly: €4,788.73; Daily: €957.75.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jan 23 - 05:52 AM

From wiki:

"Some media claimed that the erratic behaviour of the paparazzi chasing the car, as reported by the BBC, had contributed to the crash. In 1999, a French investigation found that Paul lost control of the vehicle at high speed while intoxicated by alcohol and under the effects of prescription drugs, and concluded that he was solely responsible for the crash. He was the deputy head of security at the Hôtel Ritz Paris and had earlier goaded paparazzi waiting for Diana and Fayed outside the hotel. Anti-depressants and traces of an anti-psychotic in his blood might have worsened Paul's inebriation. In 2008, the jury at the British inquest Operation Paget returned a verdict of unlawful killing through grossly negligent driving by Paul and the following paparazzi vehicles."

The French investigation took 18 months and concluded that the driver of the car was solely responsible for the crash. At the time of the crash, the paparazzi motor bikes were a considerable distance behind the car and were moving more slowly than it. No paparazzi were charged with any offence. Henri Paul was three and a half times over the French drink-drive limit, had also taken drugs that could have made things worse and was driving at over twice the tunnel's speed limit. No-one in the car was wearing a seat belt.

These are the facts, and I don't understand the implication by the British inquest jury that the paparazzi were somehow jointly to blame for the accident. In my mind, had Henri Paul been sober he might just have exercised better judgement and kept going at a reasonable speed and ignored the motor bikes, which, after all, had no ability to stop or obstruct him in that tunnel. I hate paparazzi and I understand that several of them behaved disgracefully when they eventually arrived at the scene. However, justice is not well served by our allowing the justifiable detestation of such people to cloud our judgement.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: Stanron
Date: 12 Jan 23 - 06:06 AM

As for the differing points of view towards the Suffolks on opposing sides of the Atlantic, one should not be surprised. From the American point of view, He meets an American celebrity and marries her and they go and live in California and make lots of money. What's not to like?

As for the UK, he marries an American actress and they both leave the UK to live over there. And then they make loads of money from saying how bad it was in the UK. what's not to hate. As for the race issue, I remember seeing Megan in Suites, which had aired on Freeview TV some years earlier. It had never occurred to me that she was black, or had black heritage. It was the shaking the boat and rejection of the UK that I disliked.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jan 23 - 07:11 AM

Beware of being manipulated by the media when trying to come to conclusions as to who did or said what to whom and beware of partial or one-sided trickles of information. All I know is the royal family have history in dealing badly with people in their circles they don't like, there have been several reported incidents of racist remarks made by people in royal circles (as to the colour of prospective babies, going slitty-eyed and "no, where are you really from", etc.) and there have been fast-and-loose dealings (to put it euphemistically) in many of their personal relationships. Not to speak of Andrew, of course. Had they been a run-of-the-mill extended family just down your street, you'd definitely have been thinking of them as a dysfunctional family and the gossip-mongers would be having a field day. So Meghan gets it in the neck for upsetting the applecart or rocking the boat. Well I am not privy to the intimate details of all these goings-on and I've never met Harry and Meghan, but I do think I'm picking up little whiffs of misogyny and racism in what's reported or commented about Meghan. She's just one young lady who got herself tangled up in a big bunch of hard-bitten and ruthless operators. "The firm", right?

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: The Sandman
Date: 12 Jan 23 - 08:31 AM

if you do not understand the jurys decision, that is your own fault, if you cannot see that if the paprazi had not been there the situation might have been different,the driver might have been driving more slowly etc
you still seem to be ignoring the fact that they were not wearing seat belts[ a common failing with the royal family],
if you choose not to wear a seat belt you are contributing to the possibilities of an accident being fatal.
if the driver was obviously pissed, you either get another driver, or wear a seat belt , or stand outside and refuse to get in the car
but if you are being pursued by papparazi, the situation is different,a Diana and co might take a risk to get away from the paparazi, do you not understand that?.
perhaps the driver was not obviously pissed,it seems to me that Diana had to take some responsibilty for her actions, and the papparazi too and the driver

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jan 23 - 08:34 AM

Good for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jan 23 - 08:39 AM

John Crace's Digested Read in today's Guardian is worth reading if you have a few Spare minutes (see what I did there?)

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Jan 23 - 09:37 AM

I'm going to use that as my defence when I go before the beak

"If Morrisons had not been there the situation might have been different, I might have never gone into the store and lifted the Scotch etc" :-D

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: The Sandman
Date: 12 Jan 23 - 10:23 AM

my point
Gnome
is that everyone has to take responsibilty for their actions that includes Gnomes[ who steal]
Diana, Papparazi, People that think they are above the law and do not wear seat belts and intoxicated drivers they are all at fault[ in this situation] to some extent. that is what the jury decided too
if you go in to Morrisons and break the law, it is your fault , that is why we have juries who are not influenced by knowing the person concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jan 23 - 10:57 AM

To be clear, the paparazzi (which I've been misspelling until now!) were not charged with any motoring offence, as there was no appropriate offence to charge them with, so your claim that they were "above the law" doesn't really stand up. Their activities that night may have been thoroughly despicable but were not held to be against the law.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: The Sandman
Date: 12 Jan 23 - 11:56 AM

i did not claim that ,
and apologies if my punctuation made it look like that
my reference to above the law, was people who do not wear seat belts, Diana and some of the the other car passengers,
paparazzi did not break the law, but their actions and their presence following diana and co, influenced decisions that were subsequently made by diana and co
for example if paparazzi had not been there, would the car passengers been in such a hurry to leave?,might they have noticed the car drivers intoxication and waited for another chauffeur etc. this is imo why the jury came to their decision, do you understand what i am saying?

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Jan 23 - 01:13 PM

Yes Dick. Everyone has to take responsibility for their actions. The driver drove the car at high speeds while he was pissed. The only reason he was not prosecuted is because he was dead. There was nothing for the paparazzi to be prosecuted for. Had the driver survived he would have been convicted of a criminal offence whether the paparazzi had been involved or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: The Sandman
Date: 12 Jan 23 - 01:29 PM

yes, but why were they not wearing seat belts and why if the driver was intoxicated, did they not change drivers, why,, because they were trying to get away from paparazzi,it is not just legalities that the jury was considering but casue and effects
the jury came to their conclusions, presumably taking all this in to consideration.
thank god you are not a judge

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Jan 23 - 01:47 PM

Papparazi are everywhere when the Royals are about. Everyone knows they are 'almost' impossible to avoid. It's an albatross around the royal neck. Driving recklessly to avoid them at any time is foolish, and drinking too much before driving is also foolish. I suppose Paul had drunk too much to analyze his own abilities, and I will always wonder why no one else who was near had realized he should not drive.

The papparazi were a factor only in that they are always a factor. Too bad we can't know what was said in the car as they sped along.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Jan 23 - 01:58 PM

Thomas Macauley said it well back in Queen Victoria's time: "We know no spectacle so ridiculous as the British public in one of its periodical fits of morality."

John Crace's Digested Read of Prince Harry's self-obsessed ghosted ramblings is well worth leaving a look at. Cruel but accurate.. Cuts to the quick.

Stephen Hawking's record as the most bought and least read publishing phenomenon is at risk.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Jan 23 - 01:59 PM

Dick. An inquest is not a court of law. The coroner is not there to give an innocent or guilty verdict but did conclude with an unlawful killing verdict. This could result in a criminal prosecution but British courts do not have the jurisdiction to try events in France and the coroner was not able to compel French paparazzi photographers to appear before the inquest. An earlier French investigation of the crash cleared the paparazzi photographers of responsibilty for the deaths.

From the report in the Guardian -

The jury forewoman told the coroner Lord Justice Scott Baker that the deaths had been caused by "grossly negligent driving".

She added from a prepared text: "The crash was caused or contributed to by the speed and manner of the driving of the Mercedes, the speed and manner of driving of the following vehicles, the impairment of the judgment of the driver of the Mercedes through alcohol, and there are nine of us who agree on those conclusions. In addition, the death of the deceased was caused or contributed to by the fact that the deceased [were] not wearing seatbelt(s), the fact that the Mercedes struck the pillar in the Alma Tunnel rather than colliding with something else, and we are unanimous on that, sir."

I must also point out that the driver was no mere chauffeur but the acting head of security at the Hotel, owned by Dodi Fayad's father. It was in Fayed's interets to try and move the blame for his son's death away from his own employee.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: The Sandman
Date: 12 Jan 23 - 03:55 PM

its not over till the fat man has fulminated.

Subject: RE: BS: Harry Duke of Sussex
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jan 23 - 05:31 PM

"The speed and manner of driving of the following vehicles..."

Well the French enquiry (held shortly after the accident and ten years before the UK inquest, by the way) found that the paparazzi motor bikes were left well behind by the sudden acceleration of the Mercedes before it entered the tunnel, and that there was the strong probability that none of them were even in sight of the car as it crashed. It's hard to see how they could have had much to do with the actual crash. Just me searching for a bit of neutrality here...