Tom Bower's book on Meghan Markle

[SmileyFaces12]

It's out next week, titled 'Revenge'. I've ordered it already!

I didn’t say he gave a speech. He was out celebrating the 4th July with his children. Waving flags etc.

Glad that one of the people quoted in the book has confirmed that it's lies.

Does the 'writer' actually have any sources, at all?

Funny how there's not a single complaint or example of Meghan being difficult to work with or diva-ish from before her marriage (by contrast everyone who knew her or worked with her during her acting days raves about her) yet the second she married in, suddenly all these unsourced and largely anonymous or otherwise dubious claims about her being difficult pop up.

Glad that one of the people quoted in the book has confirmed that it's lies.

He didn’t. It’s much more interesting and nuanced than that.

Does the 'writer' actually have any sources, at all?

Noe you’re being plain silly. He’s a very experienced and respected journalist. Even if this turns out to be his sloppiest and most cynical work, it’s just daft to try to denigrate his backlist and his reputation.

DaniRabbity
That’s not true unless you exclude the Reitman advert quotes…

What do you mean? What on earth are you comparing to sexual assaults on women?

As I stated upthread, one of his books was serialised in the Mail. They were sued for libel, lost and had to pay damages and costs. The book had to have parts removed for the next print run. That's a pretty low bar for 'respectable'.

I juts read the entire Vanity Fair article (it’s very very long!).
MM speaks so lovingly about her father, he seems to be a very strong influence throughout her childhood, it’s terrible how that relationship has fallen apart.
I didn’t realise her parents had to struggle financially - i had the impression that they were quite comfortable and she went to private school etc. But in the interview she spoke about them having to make ends meet.

Her comment is utterly true and that is what annoys people in the UK. They’re all too happy to cash in on the titles and status for influence.

I know he’s been caught out but still PP calling him a “writer” in inverted commas was ludicrous when you look at his CV.

You look at the content of their books when you set about judging someone as a writer, not their CV. He's been 'caught out' making stuff up and presenting it as truth. This is not impressive.

You are not a British citizen, don’t live in Britain (or ‘here’ as you somewhat confusingly call it).

@Dramadrama
Would you believe me if I told you that the ins and outs of British government and history and constitutional law are not a state secret? That many people in many parts of the world study British history, chronologically and in great depth? That what happened in Westminster five hundred years ago affects the history of many more parts of the world than the island of Great Britain?

It is amusing to read your lectures on how our lives are led from across the Pond.

I wasn't responding to any claims about how your lives are led on the other side of the pond. I responded to correct assertions about British constitutional matters.

You are conflating the role of the Crown with the role of the monarch. For a lot of people the monarch does play a role in their lives. Ceremonial but at times quite powerful. Perhaps not for Rousette—entirely her call as to whether it’s true for her, but for many.

And you are confusing sentimentality with the constitutional role of the Monarch.

How much British constitutional history do British people study in school? I'm going to suggest it's not much.

He's been 'caught out' making stuff up and presenting it as truth. This is not impressive.

Exactly the same is true of the Duchess of Sussex, though…

I think what would be a very helpful addition to this debate is if anyone could lay out a clear and logical argument as to why H&M should retain royal titles now.
And without referring to others that also have titles and seem (and perhaps are) undeserving for other reasons, as the whataboutery just deflects but doesn’t address.
I have not yet seen this articulated anywhere (apologies if I’ve missed it on another thread).

@38DegreesAndRising but why should they be treated worse than say PA who still has his titles? why are they deemed worse than someone like him?

Samcro
This response gets us absolutely nowhere.
It’s pure whataboutery.
Hopefully PA will be stripped of his title and all that goes with it at some point, hell I am in favour of no royal family at all.
My specific question was why PH & MM retain titles that belong to an institution that they have chosen to depart from, and appear to have very little good to say about. Why do they choose to retain the titles that tie them to the very same toxic institution they say has caused them so much suffering? It doesn’t make sense. And it’s why skeptics( now beginning to include myself in that group) think it’s because they can cash in on the titles.

The other royals use the following formula in the context of the titles and other goodies invested in them by the people of UK:

Self-service + UK service

H & M use the following formula in the context of the titles and other goodies invested in them by the people of UK:

Self-service

In other words, they get everything, we get zilch out of the deal.

I do wonder if M tends to portray herself and her life in a way that’s best suited to the climate at the time and the readership. She has been marketing herself this way for years. So perhaps the rosy picture she painted of her relationship with her father wasn’t quite true at the time. She is making herself up as she goes along. That’s my take anyway. She blows any which way which will best serve her interests at the time.

Once her father became an inconvenience, he was ditched. The fact that she never took Harry to meet him speaks volumes. Apparently she has never visited him in Mexico, even before she met Harry.

H & M's direction of travel is clear, though, and I don't mean just to the UN. Apparently, the Nelson Mandela Foundation arranged H's speech through the Archewell Foundation. I am only surprised that their counterparts in the UK and the US such as the Blair Foundation, the Clinton Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Obama Foundation, the Bush Foundation, the Gore Foundation (there is a full name there somewhere) are not involved.

The titles are integral to the 'philanthropy'. But then, we knew that.

@MaulPerton so tell me what do the duchess of York do`/ duke of York?
surely if you have decided that the duke and duchess of Sussex should not retain their titles, you have to look at others.
also surely they will then become known as Prince Harry and Princess Henry(as he will always be a Prince) so M will be called Princess Meghan. would you prefer that?

Your question is disingenuous, because it has been answered plenty of times.

If a person tells you, my father abused me, you don't say to them, no don't tell anyone because he's been feeding you and taking care of you. You also don't say give me the details and show me the exact things he did and show me positions etc. You don't also then go on and tell the victims to change their name just because they don't want to be associated with their parent - why should they be the ones who relinquish their identifier.

You also don't go ask the parent, they say recollections vary' and you say, see there, all done, it never happened.

The victim is telling you about the abuse and what took place, more than anything they would like the parent to change and not do the same to others, maybe grandchildren etc. (this is not just an example of sexual abuse, mind you, could be any sort of abuse, wether emotional, verbal etc.).

MM showed the emails grovelling to her father and he ignored her and went to talk bad about her to the tabloids. Simples !

Noe you’re being plain silly. He’s a very experienced and respected journalist. Even if this turns out to be his sloppiest and most cynical work, it’s just daft to try to denigrate his backlist and his reputation.

He has been sued for writing lies, fgs.

prc.org.uk/en/post/4148

I see the book has been pulled from publication in the US for now.

I think what would be a very helpful addition to this debate is if anyone could lay out a clear and logical argument as to why H&M should retain royal titles now

Apart from why should they, and the obvious and very relevant fact that the disgraced Royal still his has, plus ex wife.... my question to you is.. what difference would it make?

They will still be known.

In the US they will carry on calling them Prince Harry, Duchess Meghan, Princess Meghan, with or without titles. Absolutely nothing will change. They will still give talks, they will still be prominent, they will still carry on doing what they're doing.

And detractors of them will find something else to go on and on about that they should or shouldn't do. Goal post moving has been massive all the way through.

Would you all not put threads up if they were just plain Harry and Meghan, funding themselves and living their lives doing what they want? NO NO NO.

Because Harry will forever be connected to the RF in a big way by dint of being either grandson, son or brother of the Monarch. And these threads will forever be criticising them... because - as I said years ago - they can't do a thing right for some.

On twitter, someone put together the list of lies, just from the excerpts. It looks like The Times did not 'fact check' because now they are trying to reach that Sam guy. I mean, after all those lawsuits, they did not even check this long improbable story about VF. Even the Newsweek went to check, even though it's not their excepts.

-The Queen was “relieved” about Meghan not coming to the funeral (Buckingham palace briefed journalist over the weekend that they doubt the queen was thinking about anyone else)

-Vanity Fair Cover Interview (as confirmed by Sam Kashner himself)

-Serena & Meghan only “acquaintances” (literally a tweet by Serena calling Meghan her friend in 2014)

-P&G letter (literally a video on NickNews about it)

-Reitman’s interview (Made up story in the Daily fail + Meghan has shown her feet in photos)

-Meghan “refused” to call her dad (court case confirmed that she was trying to get in touch with him after his fake heart attack)

-Meghan “threw tea” at someone in Australia (his source is a deranger’s tweet)

-Meghan was “banned” from Diana’s jewels (she literally owns Diana’s Cartier watch and butterfly earrings)

-Meghan “lashed” out at Harry’s racist & sexist friends (Shooting party never happened at Sandringham in Nov so this NEVER HAPPENED)

-Harry’s friends hated Meghan (Tom Bradby said his friends urged him to marry her and Meghan was literally laughing with them at Skippy’s wedding)

-Emma refused to meet Meghan (Meghan met her in 2014 and Emma promoted Meghan’s cookbook in 2018)

-Toni Morrison & Dian Fossey on ‘Forces for Change’ Vogue cover (they’re weren’t even on it)

BTW, someone came on here and put up a doctored video of H&M holding hands.
Here is the undoctored version. Let's try to keep MN not as bottom feeding as BG, shall we.

twitter.com/InvictusbyPepp/status/1549302670753775618