Tom Bower's "Betrayal" Book discussion thread

[BasiliskStare]

My copy of Tom Bower's new book "Betrayal" has transported itself on to my Kindle . Just started it.
A thread for those reading for discussion if anyone is interested.
All opinions welcome , but no spitting , no fighting 😂

Oh ! I’m now wondering if Harry’s ( rather dubious it now seems!) case against ANL is actually more about revenge ?!

I wonder if Hacked Off assessed him as an easy mark. He comes across as so embittered and vengeful, even over old girlfriends and events of 20 years ago.

What the hell have his private therapists been playing at? He is stuck in a cycle of self-fuelling his own anger, and it’s pretty obvious the man hates his past, hates his life, and hates himself, clinging to his wife like a drowning man clutches at a floating piece of the shipwreck.

It’s Greek tragedy stuff.

I don't find Tom Bower or Andrew Lownie particularly nice people. They both have pretty large axes too grind.

But having said that I don't think that affects facts, just their interpretation of things that aren't facts. I'm not surprised there isn't much new in this book, Harry and Meghan live pretty public lives and all the interviews, books and statements they have released make their views easy to find.

Disappointing to give trolls space in a book which claims to be serious but i suppose rumours need addressing, hopefully to point out what isn't true.

See i know this is controversial but I think someone might have wondered what colour the baby would as an interest point rather than a worry. Also it's not for me to say as Im not of colour, but I think the press turned on her because she is a woman with a voice.

Yes, on his Substack.

To avoid derailing this thread, you'll find details if you search my username and Lownie or Substack.

See i know this is controversial but I think someone might have wondered what colour the baby would as an interest point rather than a worry.

It's also possible that someone had a well-intentioned conversation about what the media stories might be like, given the 'commoner genes' story with Catherine.
https://archive.is/ogARS

@TravellingSomewhere "And OP has now read the book snd says it has nothing new it in that you wouldn't of already known (presumably read for free)."

That's not quite what I said. I said there (in my opinion ) are no salacious new details if that's what people were expecting . I also said a lot of his footnotes referred to previously published material. But those are wide and varied. He also has footnotes referring to "private interviews" which I assume he can back up. So expecting to read eg H is doing an astro physics degree at UCLA , never before known - it's not there ( I made that up - the degree bit - not it not being there 😂) Those who follow the life and times of H&M will know a lot of this stuff but there are some interesting things I didn't know. Others may have.
I'm not an advocate of reading the book , just giving one opinion. I thought it was a decent effort and brings quite a lot together quite succinctly. He isn't a forensic historian but then no-one is compelled to read his book.

@Thedom - If you give me a while I'll check re the Invictus Sussex squad thing. I love my Kindle for very many reasons but it is harder to flip back and forth than will a physical book. Have a few errands today but I'll give it a go and check later on.

I think it’s likely either they were too busy appeasing him to do the job properly or more likely he didn’t listen or pay attention to what they said!

Op, no fighting said in a Thomas Shelby voice 😃

https://x.com/EnglishRose543/status/2037466111386554589/photo/1

Don’t pay it any mind ! The new narrative is obviously to discredit and put people off reading the book!
but I do find the accusation that you read the book “ for free” rather a tad unsavoury!

I didn't accuse anyone of reading the book for free. I was simply saying if there is no new information and its information you already knew about which you would have read about for free. If its come from Internet trolls well anything can find that for free by searching the Internet, if its from previous news articles again most is free to read and then there are sm foums like this one where people post the information up for free.

I don't need to discredit him, he did that himself in that interview I was simply asking people the OP what their thoughts were about the fact it contains lies/ made up stuff.

Sorry couldn’t follow half of that!

I haven't bought the book (I may do yet) but I'm appreciating seeing in print correction of some of the Sussex lies.

Edit to add: for clarity, I've been following along on another site.

Thanks @TravellingSomewhere - you are right - I didn't read the book for free . I said most / a lot of the information was in the public domain.

So - (don't ask me about pages in the actual book because I don't have that only the Kindle version )

• 64% is the actual book. - The rest is a short acknowledgments and the rest is Endnotes ( ie references. ) Inter alia these include newspapers , podcasts , publicly available interviews , other books , some publicly available court statements etc. & some Private interviews. So yes you could read a lot for free but many behind paywalls - good luck if you have the time and the stamina to go through all those if you can borrow a physical book to take a copy of the references . Personally I was happy to stump up the Kindle price ( I check my priviledge) to have TB do that for me. & he's put together a readable book.

To be honest, I don't think he has given credence to trolls. Eg he referenced people saying in the twerking video M wasn't really pregnant. So that's a reference but genuinely doesn't come across like he believes it. I think he will have been too careful to include lies / made up stuff. Colour me naive but I do. Why would he when he could be sued? No dragon slayer he methinks.

I'm not an apologist for Tom Bower. I just thought those who had read the book might have some interesting views on it.

What do you mean by that exactly?

That the media weren't being racist, they didnt like an outspoken woman and it was misogyny. I barely know what kate M sounds like as she never speaks. As I said she felt it was racist, so it is.

I agree with this - he has been the ‘useful idiot’ to many people - including MM - for them to push their own agenda. Someone with such a reactive, brittle and brooding disposition doesnt take too much effort to activate.

I think PH was also very specifically and strategically used by Hacked Off to groom and reel in Doreen Lawrence - both participants then giving the case more profile (PH) and sympathy (DL) - because let’s face it who would care from the hasbeens Sadie Frost, Simon Hugh’s and Liz Hurley etc.

IMO
If Harry wants tax payer funded security then he can come back and earn his keep, by visiting hospitals and factories, not just celebrity gigs.

Well, quite. I don't think the Chief Literary Critic for The Sunday Times need worry about the competition.

No she FELT it was racist but that doesn't necessarily mean it was. Many people FEEL things but it doesn't mean they were intended that way.

I was more interested in how you thought she was outspoken eg when - I recall the engagement interview where she was happy and then the Africa " nobody asks how I am " . I don't know if I would class her as outspoken at that time or ever - sure she talks a LOT but much of it is garbled in vogue talk . I guess I would say maybe whiney and inappropriate. Of course we don't know the background goings on with the bullying of staff.

Also odd that you say the POW never speaks.

She - you mean Meghan, I assume - didn't hear the conversation. She got it second hand from Harry. Who knows what spin he placed on the conversation, whatever it was about? And yes, POC (like me) talk about what a future baby will look like, including colour of skin, hair and eyes, as has been discussed many times on these threads. The one person who has publicly expressed a fear that his child might take on Meghan's colouring is Harry - expressing relief that his "ginger genes" had prevailed over Meghan's in his daughter (during his Colbert Show interview). And both Harry and Meghan rejoiced over Lily's "blue blue blue eyes" and Diana colouring during the Netflix docusoap; dispensing with any discussion of Archie with a quick, "he looks like Meghan".

It’s also worth mentioning that at the time H and M made THAT statement, they also issued another one stating that as IPPs they would continue to receive full protection. That was removed but maybe someone took a screenshot.
Harry said he never thought his security would be removed . Even though he was told it would be !

I think he will have been too careful to include lies / made up stuff. Colour me naive but I do. Why would he when he could be sued? No dragon slayer he methinks.

I don't agree with the dragon slayer part. Bower has taken on some very big fish, eg Robert Maxwell, Tiny Rowlands, Richard Branson. Several have tried to sue him - unsuccessfully. Maxwell basically had to buy Bower's publishing house to prevent his book being published.

He was successfully sued by Nick Brown MP on the very issue of repeating a rumour - a case heard in front of Nicklin MJ no less (the judge in the ongoing ANL case). So Bower knows better than to be relying on rumours (trolling) as facts in his books, and I assume his publishers don't want to be stung again.

There is absolutely nothing wrong discussing online conjecture and conspiracy without giving it the stamp of credibility or approval- and in this day and age it would be a bit silly to ignore the massive, digital elephant in the room vis a vis a couple who utilise online vehicles on a daily basis and have an online fan club who are quite happy to do a bit of trolling themselves. And it would be stupid to ignore the vast amount of noise about the Sussexes that takes place outside regular media discussion platforms. That's actually just acknowledging the zeitgeist, and the reason there is a discord in the level of popularity and credibility the press want to project the Sussexes as retaining, and their actual level of popularity in the wild. A discord GMB/ITV doesn't seem to understand, or doesn't want to.

One snippet I found interesting:

Court case against the Mirror - one of the headlines that was alleged to come from phone hacking was “Hooray Harry is dumped” (about Chelsy Davy). He thought they were saying “hooray” in a celebratory way because he didn’t know it was a word commonly used to describe his type of people.