"Spare" memoir by the Duke of Sussex (2023)

[Leopoldine]

Originally Posted by Royalist.in.NC

I do not remember Stephen Colbert ever having another guest on his show for the entire time. Usually, it’s his opening monologue, some talk to the band, a guest, Colbert doing a humorous segment, another guest - you get the picture. This really, really surprised me. Full disclosure: I really like Colbert!

And you are absolutely correct - all is worked out In interviews with Colbert’s team in advance. Usually the guest is a celebrity with a new movie or TV show, an author with a new book, or a politician talking about something currently in the news.

If anyone remembers Colbert having one guest stay for the whole show, I’d be interested in knowing.

If there was a musical guest in the last 3 minutes, I missed them. There was another guest name in the promos for the show, I assumed they got bumped. I didn't care. It's not like Colbert booked Artie Shaw.

[Toledo]

Re Harry's interview with Colbert one of the Body Language experts stated the following:
1. For security reasons it was done unannounced and with no audience present.

2. The applause, laughs and public reactions were added in afterwards during the editing. Then presented within the show as if it was 'live'. You don't see Harry doing his thing and playing for the crowd because is just tech staff behind the equipment.

These NY or LA based night shows are recorded in the afternoons, edited and then broadcasted in Prime Time/late hours. That's why you never hear any remarks of anything important happening in the USA, or the World for that matter, until the following day if it happens during the afternoon taping.

[Prinsara]

Originally Posted by Toledo

Re Harry's interview with Colbert one of the Body Language experts stated the following:
1. For security reasons it was done unannounced and with no audience present.

2. The applause, laughs and public reactions were added in afterwards during the editing. Then presented within the show as if it was 'live'. You don't see Harry doing his thing and playing for the crowd because is just tech staff behind the equipment.

It says it was taped in front of a separate audience, not that there was no audience. From an actual newspaper, not a YouTube source. https://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...ce-upsets-fans

[Denville]

what is a separate audience?

[Denville]

Originally Posted by camelot23ca

I

What made the Panorama interview different was Bashir’s intentional dishonesty. It was professionally unethical and amoral in general, because he knew his actions had the potential to cause a great deal of psychological harm to Diana.

I think that yes Diana was by then known by a lot of people who knew her to be fragile mentally. Harry is a bit of an unknown quality in that respect right now. He is not really all that coherent and he is almost certainly still using booze and drugs, so its hard to say what is his own doing and what's mental problems that he can't help. But what is not in dispute IMO is that he and Meg went to America to make money and they knew that they would be telling all about the RF to make that money.
Its hard to say if perhaps H has deteriorated lately to a point wehre he is mentally ill, and if that happens, then I think that interviewers should be more cautious in interviewing him.... and certainly not allow him to have booze or drugs.

[Imanmajed]

Originally Posted by Denville

what is a separate audience?

Means that the viewers of the show who was present live were not in the same room or on the same day/time there with Harry when the interview took place. Negative reactions from the audience can thus be technically prevented/switched off. Only the positive reactions of the audience (or those that the organizer wishes to show publicly) are then broadcast on TV.

In Harrys case the show had taped the “Prince Harry interview“ a day earlier with no audience, citing security reasons.

Originally Posted by Prinsara

It says it was taped in front of a separate audience, not that there was no audience.

seperate audience = no audience ....no one of the audience was there live as the interview took place.

[Denville]

Hmm, but ther is an audience. i Presume they watch on a screen as its being filmed?

[Imanmajed]

Originally Posted by Denville

Hmm, but ther is an audience. i Presume they watch on a screen as its being filmed?

No, in Harrys case the show had taped the “Prince Harry interview“ a day earlier with no audience, citing security reasons.

[Hallo girl]

Originally Posted by Imanmajed

Means that the viewers of the show who was present live were not in the same room or on the same day/time there with Harry when the interview took place. Negative reactions from the audience can thus be technically prevented/switched off. Only the positive reactions of the audience (or those that the organizer wishes to show publicly) are then broadcast on TV.

In Harrys case the show had taped the “Prince Harry interview“ a day earlier with no audience, citing security reasons.



seperate audience = no audience ....no one of the audience was there live as the interview took place.

I didn't see the whole programme but I did see a clip where he asks if there are veterans in the audience. There was a response.

[Prinsara]

Originally Posted by Denville

what is a separate audience?

A different audience than the one they would have originally taped in front of, aka, people who were there for Monday's taping, which is why there are clips of Harry with Tom Hanks.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=f0ISUMo0zDU

I don't know where this persistent myth of "there was no audience and all the footage and reactions are fake" comes from, especially when it's refuted by the LA Times.

[lip63]

hello long time lurker first time poster, im still catching up on the last few pages but after the discussion about harrys potential drug use during his service and whether he avoided drugs test, i thought id add something.

harry trained to fly the apache helicopter. It has a 2 person crew, the pilot and the weapons system operator. During initial training new recruits are taught how to perform both roles, however in the british army its standard that when they join their operational squadron, the new pilots are responsible for flying the aircraft whilst the more experienced crew member operates the weapons and is in command with the roles being 'fixed'.

At the end of his training it was announced that harry, on joining his squadron would be the WSO. This was explained at the time, if i recall, that there was simply a surplus and nothing untoward was happening. However, many pages ago, another poster said that harry stated in his book he was paired with a more experienced pilot which given what ive said above doesnt really make sense. the expectation would be that 'he' would switch roles and be the gunner whilst harry would be the one doing the actual flying.

whilst i think its possible harry did meet the standards to be a WSO, the only way i can make the above make sense in my mind is if harry never met the standards for being a pilot and the army found a way to accommodate him. i think you can legiteamately ask that question

[Toledo]

Originally Posted by Denville

Hmm, but ther is an audience. i Presume they watch on a screen as its being filmed?

A separate audience in this case seems then more in the lines of a Viewing Part event. The Colbert show wanted to manipulate the situation and yet, continue the trend of USA interviews never to confront him with facts and press him to tell the truth on live TV.

[Prinsara]

Originally Posted by Toledo

A separate audience in this case seems then more in the lines of a Viewing Part event. The Colbert show wanted to manipulate the situation and yet, continue the trend of USA interviews never to confront him with facts and press him to tell the truth on live TV.

Would you please stop? The interview was filmed in front of a normal audience. The same ones who saw Tom Hanks, probably. Just not the ones who thought they would see Harry. Colbert is a master comic and doesn't care too much whether the crowd is happy or hostile. He'll still get ratings.

The LA Times says "audience". Not "no audience", not "viewing party". Unless you have a reliable source to contradict that, please stop spreading other narratives.

[Toledo]

Originally Posted by lip63

hello long time lurker first time poster, im still catching up on the last few pages but after the discussion about harrys potential drug use during his service and whether he avoided drugs test, i thought id add something.

harry trained to fly the apache helicopter. It has a 2 person crew, the pilot and the weapons system operator. During initial training new recruits are taught how to perform both roles, however in the British army its standard that when they join their operational squadron, the new pilots are responsible for flying the aircraft whilst the more experienced crew member operates the weapons and is in command with the roles being 'fixed'.

At the end of his training, it was announced that harry, on joining his squadron would be the WSO. This was explained at the time, if I recall, that there was simply a surplus and nothing untoward was happening. However, many pages ago, another poster said that harry stated in his book he was paired with a more experienced pilot which given what I've said above doesn't really make sense. the expectation would be that 'he' would switch roles and be the gunner whilst harry would be the one doing the actual flying.

whilst I think it's possible harry did meet the standards to be a WSO, the only way i can make the above make sense in my mind is if harry never met the standards for being a pilot and the army found a way to accommodate him. i think you can legitimately ask that question

Welcome to the Forum and thanks for posting your thoughts!

I assume at all stages of his military service there were precautions taken so he would always be with someone that can step in and take over. I can't recall the time without looking it up now, but I think William was not married/w children yet and Harry was still # 3 in the succession order with Prince Andrew as # 4. So, he had to be protected by all means.

[Toledo]

Originally Posted by Prinsara

Would you please stop? The interview was filmed in front of a normal audience. The same ones who saw Tom Hanks, probably. Just not the ones who thought they would see Harry. Colbert is a master comic and doesn't care too much whether the crowd is happy or hostile. He'll still get ratings.

The LA Times says "audience". Not "no audience", not "viewing party". Unless you have a reliable source to contradict that, please stop spreading other narratives.

Ok
And I'm not spreading narratives if I see the interview was manipulated by Colbert and his staff.

Re Colbert, he is a great comedy writer, some of his best work I remember was in the TV series 'Strangers with Candy'. But he is overrated to me in the nighttime interview lineup. He's anything but bias, like all hosts are, and much like Harry, does he enjoy his opinions to be only ones that count.

Without getting into risqué commentary here, Colbert is one of many that declines every night to do comedy on the current leader and his very public erratic behavior the same way he did to the predecessor.

[Royalist.in.NC]

Originally Posted by Prinsara

A different audience than the one they would have originally taped in front of, aka, people who were there for Monday's taping, which is why there are clips of Harry with Tom Hanks.

I don't know where this persistent myth of "there was no audience and all the footage and reactions are fake" comes from, especially when it's refuted by the LA Times.

Thanks for posting this clip! Some additional info below that might help others and a question I have as well.

It WAS a live audience just like you said - just not the people who stood in line thinking they were going to get to see him so those people were mad coz they didn’t get to see him. It was taped live the day before (so surprise to the audience who was there not knowing that Harry would be there) - they are saying due to security. So the people the next day stood in line thinking they were going to see him when it had already been taped the day before.

What I don’t understand: if it was taped live (in the afternoon before which it always is) and then broadcast that same night, why didn’t Colbert fans know that Harry had already been on? That is, if they are such fans that they would stand in line, why hadn’t they watched the night before and seen that Harry had already been on with Tom Hanks? This is what confuses me.

[lip63]

Originally Posted by Toledo

Welcome to the Forum and thanks for posting your thoughts!

I assume at all stages of his military service there were precautions taken so he would always be with someone that can step in and take over. I can't recall the time without looking it up now, but I think William was not married/w children yet and Harry was still # 3 in the succession order with Prince Andrew as # 4. So, he had to be protected by all means.

thank you for the welcome

with regards to the apache the crew sit in tandem, the pilot in the rear the WSO in the front seat, both have the flight control systems. if for any reason 'he' needed to take control as a precaution from harry it could be done from the front seat WSO position. i dont think it was as a "precaution"

[Royalist.in.NC]

This clip shows some of the rehearsal for the “red carpet fanfare” and Harry shaking hands with audience members. Harry says to the audience : “you didn’t know, did you.” Obviously, this clip includes many guests who weren’t on that night.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYsFvdHtxWs

[Prinsara]

Originally Posted by Royalist.in.NC

What I don’t understand: if it was taped live (in the afternoon before which it always is) and then broadcast that same night, why didn’t Colbert fans know that Harry had already been on? That is, if they are such fans that they would stand in line, why hadn’t they watched the night before and seen that Harry had already been on with Tom Hanks? This is what confuses me.

Because that clip was only aired on Tuesday (why Tom says "I'm back"). There was no way for the Tuesday audience to know Harry's interview had been done the day before, which is why the LA Times says they were so angry.

[Royalist.in.NC]

Ohhhh! That makes sense now - thanks!

I found the clip above which refutes some “no audience, fake responses, edited after the fact” comments upthread.