Tom Bower's book on Meghan Markle

[SmileyFaces12]

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

confirmation that it was Camilla who speculated on the baby’s looks ( a “joke” apparently, that made Harry laugh until he repeated it to Meghan). , so this could be what they referred to in the Oprah interview ? And he found it funny at first ?

I think even in the interview he admitted at first he was a bit surprised. It was only when he reported the joke to Meghan and she was furious, did he start to see it differently. Context is everything really, and she wasn’t present .

Therefore, the 'revenge' in Bower's title?

I couldn't say, PaulMerton, since I don't know what's going on in Harry's mind - though looking at some of his expressions (even allowing for the wretched media choosing the worst pic) I doubt it's pleasant

I sometimes smile at the insistence that racist, bunch-of-ghastly-mates Harry has completely changed though. MN can be a funny place at times, and it's fascinating to see things swing from "racists never change" and "who folk mix with shows who they are" to this

Therefore, the 'revenge' in Bower's title

I think you’ve hit on it. He can’t do the raising armies thing so he’s using the modern weapons of media, PR and public opinion.

The trope of feuding brothers wouldn’t be a trope if it wasn’t deeply embedded in the histories, myths and stories of humanity.

Sad, I think.

I’d be furious too, so would my DH.

I’m sure the Spencers and Windsors were unimpressed. Those types are very snobby and anyone not in their set would probably fail to pass muster. Let us not forget that Kate had to be in it for the long haul and “morph” into a fully-fledged posho as plenty of their crowd thought her background rather downmarket.

The Windsor's aren't posh - they are newcomers relatively , changed name to Windsor after the war (prob first ) the Spencer's 15th C,other Norman landowners, the grosvenors, 16th, etc

Hence they often mix with new money

Reply to @Womenandwomenfirst

I’d be furious too, so would my DH

I am furious as well and so is my cousin that there are people who have more than me.

Isn’t that feeling, and how we deal with it, the crux of it for us all? To destroy, or not to destroy, because of it. They destroyed.

He had everything but wanted more, is that right? More than everything. He had millions but wanted more millions? He had a mansion but wanted a bigger mansion? He was royalty but wanted...what? He couldn't go any higher. There are no redeeming features to these people at all. Yes, it is sad.

The Windsor's aren't posh - they are newcomers relatively , changed name to Windsor after the war (prob first ) the Spencer's 15th C,other Norman landowners, the grosvenors, 16th, etc

Windsor as a name is only just over 100 years old yes - it was changed as the name Victoria adopted after marrying Prince Albert (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) was seen as too German when the nation was at war with Germany (amusingly Victoria’s heralds actually concluded that Albert’s personal surname was Wettin, but clearly that didn’t sound noble enough! She adopted his designation instead).

The name change doesn’t mean that the family were newcomers however - the Queen, Victoria, all the Georges etc were all descendants of the House of Hanover who came to the UK to take over the throne in the early 1700s. But they were still related to the past Kings. George I, the first Hanover monarch, was the great-grandson of James I who was Elizabeth I’s cousin and heir. His own grandparents were Henry VII and Elizabeth of York. So that takes us back to the 1480s - the current Queen has a direct line of descent to all of these (and further back too).

It’s not like, say, the Swedish royal family who are descendants of one of Napoleon’s generals who they just randomly offered the throne to after Waterloo😂

I've read most of the book of more accurately listened to it. I found it interesting. Nothing very new but a different perspective for me as I've always been a big defender of H and M. Have to say I'm reassessing quite a few things.
As a writer he's fond of the word 'Pertinently'.

Sorry, or not of more accurately.

Oh dear, oh dear, did Bower's sources lead him astray?

Palace insiders have something to say apparently.

As a few have noticed, some of it is bizarre disjointed nonsense, forcefully clubbed together to create a narrative.

twitter.com/InvictusbyPepp/status/1550214797375033344

Once again, I cannot take seriously, the ramblings of a man who has made it clear that his aim is to cause H&Ms downfall.

A misogynist who sees a smiling woman and refers to her as a brazen hussy. Bowers is a despicable and hateful individual.

@Meanderings

😂😂😂

OMG. I just saw a few things on MS. Did he also quote something MM said at engagement interview and assign it something else in his 'fact checking' ?

In all his 4 decades of wiring, I'm sure Bower is thinking, blimey I've never made such easy money in my life. Repackage all DM, and sm lies in a book and sell it back to the haters. He can just rush to splice it whichever way he likes.

Has the story that Camilla and PC were laying in bed and PC asked the question and Camilla was wide eyed, not changed to it was Camilla instead, but actually Harry was in the room laughing ? 😂 Seriously, I can't keep up.

And how many remixes to the Duchess and Tights story?

Ben was a bit put out when Bower admitted on GMB that he only spoke to those who hate MM - he asked where the lack of bias then. It's funny how he says he called the Sam guy, did he tell him he would frame his words for his Duchess of Sussex take down - because it looks like the guy would have corrected his meaning if he had read how his words would be twisted.

Good luck with his taking down of H&M, I believe Tina Brown's book was supposed to do that too.

It looks like the guy would have corrected his meaning if he had read how his words would be twisted.

Tom Bower has already noted that he had a lengthy phone call with Sam Karshner in May when he read him all the quotes he had used from their interview, and talked him through the chapter - and Sam Karshner was perfectly happy with it and requested no corrections whatsoever.

So my theory that someone had been leaning on Mr Karshner to try to attempt to discredit Tom Bower looks more likely.

Sam Karshner really didn't seem that sort at all. It's a theory, yes, but I can't imagine it myself.
He had something to say and he said it.

And as for the crygate/tight gate - I never understood why the whole thing assumed so much importance? One was a bride under a great deal of pressure, the other a very new postpartum mother. Someone getting upset and tearful sound not entirely unexpected to me.

But apart from that - the press got the story and ran with it. Meghan says she asked the Palace to correct it. They said they would not comment on such matters. In the red corner, Omid Scobie them says “It was actually Kate” in Finding Freedom, and Meghan then says again on Oprah “It was actually Kate”.

In the blue corner, we have Kate, who’s said…nothing at all. And as her spokesperson said when he Oprah Winfrey interview aired, Meghan will have known that Kate cannot respond to this.

Somewhere ranged around the sides we have Tom Bower and bizarrely, Kirstie Allsop, friend of Camilla who both say it was Meghan. Tina Brown doesn’t express a view. Sussex fans howl that it was clearly an example of the Palace lying to paint Meghan in a bad light.

Does that about cover it? Honestly, it seems quite ridiculous that something like this could get blown up to assume such importance. 🤷‍♀️

Of course your own family (husband/wife/children) comes first! It's a given.

Not for me. I never loved my parents and siblings less because I got married. Obviously my children would take more of my time than my parents who were healthy and independent. But when my father was in hospital, i didn't hesitate to leave my husband and kids to go be with my mum. And now my mum with dementia gets more time than my grown up children. Who comes first depends on need. I couldn't imagine treating my parents poorly just because I got married.

I’m about 20% in, just when Harry met Meghan.

He paints a picture of a ambitious lady frustrated by a lack of success in Hollywood. I’ve thought the same and have posted along these lines.

Omid Scobie them says “It was actually Kate”
No, Scobie said it never happened.

Kate seems to have had a lot of 'sources' correcting for her, including Bower himself now. I would hardly say she could not answer.

It was used as a weapon against MM, but when MM corrects it, it's suddenly not important. Sorry, that is not how it works. This is a serious racist trope used against black women as the 'angry black woman'. Very damaging and frankly disgusting.

just going by mn and what was said about this, M was painted as all kinds of evil for making K cry. after M set the story straight and said K made her cry, it was "oh people cry"
who knows what really happened, but the double standard are awful.

One's just given birth, one's getting married. I could see them both crying. But in her Oprah interview, why not just say they both got fraught. Why try to put it all on KMs shoulders and then try and make yourself look the big person by not divulging what really happened and saying you've forgiven her? When she clearly hadn't and went on to compound it by blaming KM for not putting the record straight. Ironic as she didn't put it straight herself.
KM gave a big bouquet of flowers in recognition of her part in it. MM gave a slap in the face in recognition of hers.

Of course if parents are ill, and you have a good relationship you don't just ditch them! I nursed my dear old Mum through cancer until the end. Ditto my Dad with heart disease at the same time. I was driving a 60 mile round trip nearly every day with two DCs to look after too.

Of course it depends on need.

But when things are stable, and I'm not needed for health reasons, my family come first. Like now... no parents around, just siblings, I put my family first.

I think my first paragraph illustrates I didn't treat my parents poorly because I got married

Let alone the sort, but he was totally praising of MM in an interview beforehand.

I don't think anyone leaned on him, just as no one was leaning on him during the televised interview. If Bower had showed him how he intended to frame it, he
probably would have corrected it.

If for example you say "I know her'. That is just a statement, and when someone phones you and says, that is what I'm quoting, you will agree. In this case, clearly Bower told him that, but just left out that afterwards, he described it as: 'I know her', he sneered/frowned etc. Technically correct. I don't think the Sam guy can legally do anything about it.

That is pretty much the vein of Bower's book. Together with smattering of 'I think........' and other non-sourced declarations. He has forgotten he is writing a biography, not a novel or a SM post like us.

Just like a lot on his book, Bower stays within the law, whilst lying.

Some of it is bizarre disjointed nonsense, forcefully clubbed together to create a narrative

Isn't that rather an ironic comment to have come from Twitter of all places?

Twitters do not sell themselves as a 'respected biographer' in order to scam people out of their money, peddling lies.

I’m finding it quite hard to follow your posts but (from the bits I can make out), in fairness, that isn’t the “vein of the book” and there isn’t anything you could call a “smattering of ‘I think’ “ either. Whatever is being asserted comes straight from sources, so that is an account from witnesses, not the author’s own thoughts and can’t be the author “lying” can it?

We get that you’ve made up your mind to hate the book, but you should probably at least read it before making sweeping, inaccurate statements about it.

You probably still won’t like it. It’s not a hagiography, but at least you could try for an informed opinion.