Prince Harry’s colossal personal mistake in Tom Bradby’s ITV interview

No one has ever blamed Prince Harry, the author of the world’s most talked about book with an antagonistic title. Spare – to be a secret nerd, a person who is bothered by a burdensome IQ, or someone who makes The newspaper “New York Times crossword pen. But if there has ever been any evidence that he is a bit of a ding-dong, then look no further.

Despite spending years speaking out against the media, the Duke is a man with a book to sell, so you can’t get away from him this week by agreeing to a series of TV interviews to tell him everything.

Thoughts began on Monday when he spoke to ITV’s Tom Bradby, something to only reconsider if it’s absolutely necessary or if you have masochistic tendencies.

It was an agonizing hour, a good 90 minutes, with the royal looking flushed and constipated at Bradby’s refusal to buy in bulk his tired arguments and rolling out a string of banana phrases as if he said he “hopes” that “reconciliation between my family and we will have a ripple effect around the world.” (Who gave him to read bright rainbow I think?)

But in unleashing this media blitzkrieg and putting out SpareEitch may have just done something very, very short sighted and unwittingly opened Pandora’s box.

FROM Spare and the 38-year-old’s subsequent PR campaign dealt a severe blow to his future chances of enjoying anything even remotely close to private life, according to the expert.

Since then guardians Martin Pengelly got a copy Spare Last week, after some Spanish booksellers gleefully put the book up for sale a few days early, we were faced with a barrage of embarrassing, deeply personal and irritating revelations, including that William knocked Harry down during an argument in 2019 year in the most famous incident. dog bowl involvement in modern history; his heartless admission that he killed 25 people fighting in Afghanistan; and that he lost his virginity in a field behind a pub.

While Australians will have to wait until Wednesday to officially receive a copy of the book, it’s clear she dug up enough skeletons from the royal family’s closet to fill Highgate Cemetery.

And therein lies the problem. Not that he betrayed his loved ones by exposing the most private conversations, not that he overstepped the most serious boundaries by taking his family’s troubles into terrible publicity, and not that it looks like he’s now trading royal secrets for a big, fat day. payday, but what’s in the stew Spare he undermined his own quest for future privacy.

According to the editor of the British Press bulletinHarry’s decision to publish this book means that he will have to “say goodbye” to his chances of being alone with clickers and journalists.

Newspaper Dominic Ponsford writes, “One of the important factors that judges take into account when evaluating confidentiality claims is the extent to which plaintiffs themselves have made their cases public.”

One former tabloid executive said: “You can’t write about losing your virginity and then immediately complain about the lack of a private life. Suspect: a) dads will become a common sight again wherever he goes, and b) British photo studios will start buying and publishing, knowing he can’t claim privacy.”

About the irony of irony…

Here we have a man and his wife who have launched a series of high-profile legal cases against the media and yet have now potentially opened the floodgates for an even greater level of intrusion.

So let’s start with part of this mess, because photos of Harry and Meghan “out of work” (are they ever “at work” at all these days?) are now regularly appearing in the tabloids.

In a conversation with Bradby, Harry insisted: “I am very, very happy; I am very calm,” however, this statement challenges the level of intrusion they are currently facing in the US.

First, in the UK, they lived on the Windsor estate, surrounded by official security, which gave the family much more opportunities to live without telephoto lenses. That’s why the world has never seen a bird’s eye view of Frogmore Cottage, even though there are countless images of their $20 million California home. (In 2020, they sued one paparazzi agency for flying a drone over the Los Angeles home they then lived in.)

Secondly, there is an agreement between the press and the palace on photographs of the royal children, under which they will not buy or publish any pictures of the little Royal Highnesses taken by surprise, such as in the park or shopping with Kate.

In an interview Meghan gave slice journalist Allison P. Davis wrote last year that the former Suits The actress opened up about her concerns about photos of Archie.

“[She] noted that if Archie had gone to school in the UK, she would never have been able to pick up and drop off at school if it wasn’t for a royal press pen photocall of 40 people taking pictures.

“Sorry, I have a problem with this. It doesn’t make me obsessed with privacy. It makes me strong and a good parent who protects my child.”

However, there are no photos of Archie being taken by dads in the UK, only that of her carrying her son from kindergarten in the US.

Last Friday, when the world press reveled in the revelations SpareHarry was captured looking thunderous enough while walking with Sussex Labrador Pula in the pouring rain.

This now joins a series of other photos of him doing such unusual things as hiking, biking and walking on the beach; the couple boarded and disembarked from private jets in the US several times; the duo leave a meeting in Los Angeles; he plays polo, and she looks from the side; its purchase on at least two occasions; they are visiting neighbor Oprah Winfrey; and they occasionally dined, including with their cousin Princess Eugenie and her husband Jack Brooksbank, and with singer Catherine McPhee and her husband David Foster.

Heck, American celebrity website TMZ even posted photos of the Sussexes dog breeder training one of their puppies.

After all, if Harry and Meghan have been paparazzi targets so far, then Spare can only worsen the situation exponentially.

Then there is the second part here, that by releasing this autobiography, it can be proven that Harry actually violated his privacy.

This is an argument echoed by the chairman of the UK Independent Press Standards Organization, Lord Faulks, during an interview with the BBC last week when he said that if one is “ready to discuss [their private life] then it is perfectly reasonable for the press to write about it and say that they have incurred an invasion of privacy to some extent.”

Could the duke be on the wrong end of some complaint? Although this seems extremely unlikely, Ponsford, writing in Newspapersaid: “It will be interesting to see if he himself falls under privacy law” and that the 2006 case “showed that those in close family relationships have a duty to trust each other.”

What might the consequences of this look like?

There seems to be only one chance to get out of this week’s strategic car crash slow motion – the world is going to get a lot more photos of Harry and his trademark grimace while walking. And their dog owner might want to consider getting himself an agent.

Daniela Elser is a writer and royal commentator with over 15 years of experience working with a range of leading Australian media outlets.