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 😂

He was around 64 at that time?

It'd be quite interesting to know whether the role was wrested from him in favour of the thrusting DoY or whether he'd voluntarily decided to retire off his own bat.

I don't suppose we ever will though...

I don't disagree with you.

QE2. I grew up with her and the Church as unquestionable exemplars. The church I never trusted.

But I thought QE2 to be shrewd, worldly-wise, experienced, to be trusted. She was an internationally respected exemplar of duty and service. At the same time I believe she held the country back by not modernising away from reverence for the monarchy ( and the 1950s) to respect ( and modern mores).

Then you find out that she put an asshole of a man, against advice, in a position of power where he was able to trash the RF with his behavior. In her 1950s mental model, important men did naughty things- boys will ge boys - and their behaviour got covered up. She met a 2010s scandal with a 1950s establishment response, and the monarchy is in crisis as a result.

I don't understand, though, why KC3 brought AMW and his ghastly wife back in - stupid, stupid move.

W has got a lot of generational fuck-ups to square when he gets the top job.

She did more than cover up and buy off victims - once she had done that she was brash and crass by parading AMW around - she really believed she had bought the £13m right to do so !! - maybe KC3 thought the same - we have paid our way out of this - and that has bought his innocence and it’s business as usual once the raped teenager is gagged.

That's an interesting fact and makes the Government far more culpable in accessing to his demands, as opposed to trying to please the late Queen. I hope any enquiry covers every part of the establishment that failed by allowing AMW the freedom to racket around the world enriching himself and offending people.

There is a famous story that Queen Victoria refused to make lesbianism illegal because she couldn't believe women did that. I often think of it when considering the late Queen and AMW. I don't think she could being herself to believe that her son really did what Virginia accused him of.

But this is where the constitutional nature of the monarchy failed because the establishment needed to step in and insist on action way before Charles and William apparently sat her down and insisted he had to give up his titles after the Panorama interview. I can quite see police knowing more and politicians knowing more and men in grey suits knowing more but not wanting to upset the Queen by telling her. They should have done.

Harder.
or more hard.

And repeatedly raping trafficked teenage girls.

Yes, agree with all this. It does seem so very stupid for C to have brought the ghastly SF back on board. I suppose he thought she might stabilise him a bit. Quite the reverse.

I think that’s exactly what happened.

And repeatedly raping trafficked teenage girls.

This is persistently repeated as fact on these boards, on the basis of current law.

The offences AMW is accused of happened prior to 2003. The Sexual Offences Act 2003* *introduced offences around trafficking into the UK for sexual exploitation. Law is not retrospective, so the consent issue would be looked at without considering the trafficking angle.
Before 2003 there was also a defence of genuine though unreasonably mistaken belief as to consent.

I'm about 3/4 of the way through. One thing I picked up yesterday, which I hadn't realised before, is that apparently after the King made Archie and Lilibet prince and princess after his coronation, M&H changed their family name from Mountbatten-Windsor to Sussex. When Meghan made that big song and dance about their name being Sussex in WLM and correcting Mindy Kaling for calling her Meghan Markle I didn't realise that they have legally changed their name. So if William removes their titles in future, they will still be called Harry and Meghan Sussex. Maybe everyone else was aware of this, but I wasn't.

I am not sure whether they have legally changed their surnames to Sussex or whether it is just custom and practice. H was announced as Wales at a recent polo match, even though he has no right to that surname now that it is William's title.

TB clearly says that they changed their name.

I know that it's customary to call the children of a Duke by that title, e.g. George Wales, but TB says they changed their name in 2022. That explains why Meghan made that comment to MK, which had confused me up to now.

Preemptive strike methinks @zurigo

Interesting little nugget buried in an article today on the DM website:

One thing to note is that the couple parted ways a long time ago with the very influential talent agency WME. A well-placed insider at the respected Hollywood talent agency (full name William Morris Endeavour) said the Duchess of Sussex fell out with them over a ‘lack of cover over the holidays’ around Thanksgiving in 2023, and as a result they quietly opted to stop working together.

A source said: ‘She complained that she was having to do everything herself and WME essentially told her to get lost.’

The news means Meghan is without the formidable bargaining power of WME and its influential boss Ari Emanuel at the point when their deal with Netflix has been downgraded and success stories are in short supply.

I bet they're doubly glad they did it since Andrew got downgraded to Mountbatten-Windsor. If William removes their titles when he becomes king they would otherwise have been known as Harry and Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor. But that now won't be the case - they will always be Harry and Meghan Sussex.

Another interesting little bit about their name.

Apparently, Harry asked Charles Spencer if he could change Archie and Lilibet's names to Spencer and was told 'Absolutely not'!

He didn't make them Prince and Princess, it happened automatically as Grandchildren of the monarch. If Harry really didn't care about status he would have done what Edward did, left it up to the children to decide when they reached 18, but instead he jumped straight into making it clear they now had the titles. Harry is all about status and being royal.

This book doesn't do Harry any favours. Drugs, petty, irrational, easily lead by those around him. Meghan is the one with the plan - what plan? Any that gets her exposure. No staying power though.

He didn't make them Prince and Princess, it happened automatically as Grandchildren of the monarch.

Exactly.

It was always going to happen once Charles became king, and before that Archie was eligible to be called by one of Harry's minor titles.

In other words, they lied in the Oprah interview.

Okay, sorry, the issue was that the line of succession on the royal website was not updated automatically following the King's coronation. It took some time for the new titles to be added. In the meantime, M&H had Lilibet christened as Princess XXXX.

The more I read about Harry in this book the crazier I think people are to book him for mental health events.

I never understood why he was involved with mental health events. No relevant qualification etc. Was it just some band wagon he jumped on ?

If you were a socialist, part of a Labour party in government, and wanted to bring about a quiet coup against a very popular monarch.

Letting her buffoon son loose on the world would be a good way to start the campaign.

Maybe because he initially had therapy on William's suggestion? Maybe because he took drugs and spoke to toilet bins which seemed to help him? Maybe because he didn't help his wife with her mental health issues? Maybe because he's very intent on revenge ?