Battle of Brothers: William, Harry and the Inside Story of A Family in Tumult

[Curryong]

It may very well be more even handed than some of the biographies that have appeared in the last few months. I hope so, as Lacey is an historian. It almost certainly won't resort to insults or speculation about surrogate births as Lady Colin Campbell's book did.

[QueenMathilde]

Originally Posted by Curryong

I will be buying this book. Interesting that Mr Lacey comments (about the Palace Palace presumably) that Meghan was 'treated appallingly'. However, I'm a bit apprehensive that it is the Fail that has decided to serialise the biography. They have never been sympathetic to the Sussexes and I can see cherry picking among the more sensational chapters.

Well naturally if you're suing them they aren't going to write nice things about you. They would have done better to try to get along with the tabloids rather than aggravate them.


I've been reading the DM since Diana was on their cover and while they wrote a lot of negative about her they also wrote positive about her. There's only negative about Meghan and Harry. From the Mirror as well. Are they suing them too?

[Curryong]

The articles in the DM and other tabloids attacking Meghan occurred from the time of Harry and Meghan's dating years, long before the couple sued them. And none of the BRF care for the tabloid press.

[Sun Lion]

Part one of the serialisation -

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-new-book.html

[Claire]

Not much here - maybe they are leaving the tantalizing stuff for Sunday. However disagree about the desk and Christmas speech thing. I don’t think the Queen is pity in sending secret message by photos on her desk.

[tommy100]

I've never believed the Queen would deliberately not put a picture of Harry or Meghan on her desk simply out of spite. The Queen of all people is above that. However, the book proposes an interesting point - what if the decision to minimise any mention (visually or verbally) to the Sussex was out of concern that - having already made it clear they wanted a "new way" of doing things - Harry and Meghan may go on to use their royal links to make money and the christmas message may have become an almost advert for their royal links. Its an interesting point - when you have a couple in a family business announcing they want out you don't go about giving them greater prominence and focus to trade off the companies name.

[Betsypaige]

Originally Posted by Sun Lion

Part one of the serialisation -

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-new-book.html

Well, there’s a lot to unpack, but I don’t need a lot of words to say how I feel. First, I’m going to repeat what I said above - I think Lacey’s comparison of this rift to the Abdication is asinine. The rift between William and Harry is personal - in no way does it foreshadow any sort of Constitutional crisis.

I do have to ask - WHY would any true Royal insider want to speak with Lacey, knowing he was going to go nuclear with this book? I suppose it had to do with the fact that this book is described as an “antidote” to H and M - and for sure, “Brothers” makes them look awful.

I’m already not a fan of how Lacey is trying to make it seem as if all parties are at fault. I maintain that H and M handled Megxit miserably. Lacey makes it sound like HM deliberately put Harry off - as if she didn’t have her own calendar. His implication that Charles couldn’t make time for Harry was ridiculous as he himself stated that Charles has just returned from an overseas engagement.

HM is only human. If she did deliberately not include a photo of Harry for Christmas, so be it. She was making a statement that H and M couldn’t possibly miss. The comparison to the Kremlin is gross.

Mr Lacey maintains that the ill-feeling between all of the parties involved became so bad that the Queen deliberately chose not to include a picture of Harry and Meghan with their son Archie, her eighth great-grandchild, on the table during her Christmas broadcast last December as a slapdown to her grandson.

‘There were some matters on which Elizabeth II would not compromise – and chief among them was the authority of the crown,’ he writes.

‘The Sussex family had been “non-personed” as effectively as the Soviets non-personed Trotsky and Khrushchev – another charming custom, of course, that had been developed by the Kremlin.’

Lastly, the idea that HM and Charles needed to bend over backwards to accommodate Meghan is off the mark.

[Claire]

Yep, but it is something that Sussex camp has brought up as well, that there plan and grievances were not heard. I am not saying that they deliberately side tracked them , but I know that unless it is beyond critical all members of the royal family have to schedule time with the queen. Why Harry appears to think that the rules don’t apply to him _ can’t say . Might just be a disagreement about how urgent and serious the different parties saw the issue.

[Somebody]

Leaving Archie behind and Meghan returning within days, suggests that they were indeed rather impatient and not willing to go through the normal route but wanted a solution within days while they had all along planned their departure and 'surprised' the family with their unreasonable requirements that needed to be fulfilled now or they would be out...

At least they themselves proofed the queen's point that half-in/half-out was never going to work.

[Betsypaige]

Originally Posted by Somebody

Leaving Archie behind and Meghan returning within days, suggests that they were indeed rather impatient and not willing to go through the normal route but wanted a solution within days while they had all along planned their departure and 'surprised' the family with their unreasonable requirements that needed to be fulfilled now or they would be out...

At least they themselves proofed the queen's point that half-in/half-out was never going to work.

Right. Harry wanted things done on HIS timeframe.....why didn't he call his grandmother before he left for the UK? I suspect he figured no one could turn him down once he was already in the UK, lol. Robert Lacey making it seem like HM was trying to punish Harry by making him wait is ridiculous.

Overall, I get the feeling that RL thinks he's being balanced by portraying the BRF as being as in the wrong as H and M, but for me it doesn't work. I have huge issues with how the Sussexes handled things and I have zero issues with how HM and Charles handled things.

[Sun Lion]

More from the book has been released.

Updated articles from Mr Lacey -

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...odparents.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...am-summit.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...am-summit.html

[Curryong]

I'm really looking forward to reading this book in it's entirety, not the bits and pieces that the Fail has cherry picked and chosen to print. It's attitude is, as one headline proclaimed, that this book is an antidote to Finding Freedom. We will see when this book is published. Roll on, publication date!

Until then I will wait. However, I will say this. In no quarrel or debate, whether within families, even royal families, or friends and colleagues, is one side invariably and always right and the other side always 100% wrong.

[Betsypaige]

Originally Posted by Sun Lion

More from the book has been released.

Updated articles from Mr Lacey -

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...odparents.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...am-summit.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...am-summit.html

It’s pretty much all the same info as before.

I’ve lost so much respect for Robert Lacey. IMO, this book is as much an opinion piece as it is a reporting of facts. I don’t think it’s well-written, either. I loathe his HM “must have felt” - once is bad enough, I’m guessing he did it more than that.

[Hallo girl]

I cannot believe that Lacey chose not to understand the 'message with the photographs on the queens desk. Any serious follower of HM understood it, It was the continuation of the throne, Charles, William then George .
That is the messaging that has been coming out for sometime, the Xmas puddings, the 4 standing together.Even the stamp photographs.
It is all about continuity. She has other grand and great grandchildren why not put them all on the desk.
When would she stop the photographs , once she had the first 20 in line on her desk.
Yes Harry is 6th but nobody wants the tragedy that would be required to put him on the throne.
If you look back at the Xmas broadcasts there are always photographs on her desk, relevant to what was happening within the family.
His apparent lack of understanding on this makes me question his other detail.

I am so disappointed in him I was sticking up for him in earlier posts. I was going to buy this book, but will wait until it reaches the charity shop.

[Betsypaige]

Originally Posted by Hallo girl

I cannot believe that Lacey chose not to understand the 'message with the photographs on the queens desk. Any serious follower of HM understood it, It was the continuation of the throne, Charles, William then George .
That is the messaging that has been coming out for sometime, the Xmas puddings, the 4 standing together.Even the stamp photographs.
It is all about continuity. She has other grand and great grandchildren why not put them all on the desk.
When would she stop the photographs , once she had the first 20 in line on her desk.
Yes Harry is 6th but nobody wants the tragedy that would be required to put him on the throne.
If you look back at the Xmas broadcasts there are always photographs on her desk, relevant to what was happening within the family.
His apparent lack of understanding on this makes me question his other detail.

I am so disappointed in him I was sticking up for him in earlier posts. I was going to buy this book, but will wait until it reaches the charity shop.

Great points. I wonder if the sources led Lacey to believe that HM was punishing Harry because she was angry at him; given that the sources themselves were probably angry at H and M, I could buy that. Of course that doesn’t mean he has to believe it - that has never been the Queen’s way.

I don’t doubt that Lacey got his facts straight, but I don’t like nor do I agree with his interpretation of events.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Betsypaige

Great points. I wonder if the sources led Lacey to believe that HM was punishing Harry because she was angry at him; given that the sources themselves were probably angry at H and M, I could buy that. Of course that doesn’t mean he has to believe it - that has never been the Queen’s way.

I don’t doubt that Lacey got his facts straight, but I don’t like nor do I agree with his interpretation of events.

Doesn't sound like the book is much good.

[poppy7]

Originally Posted by Betsypaige

Right. Harry wanted things done on HIS timeframe.....why didn't he call his grandmother before he left for the UK? I suspect he figured no one could turn him down once he was already in the UK, lol. Robert Lacey making it seem like HM was trying to punish Harry by making him wait is ridiculous.

Overall, I get the feeling that RL thinks he's being balanced by portraying the BRF as being as in the wrong as H and M, but for me it doesn't work. I have huge issues with how the Sussexes handled things and I have zero issues with how HM and Charles handled things.

I think the point being made is rather that the staff didn't deal with the Meghan and Harry approach. It was too confrontational and they didn't know quite how to manage it right. Finding Freedom makes the point that Harry was upset that the others left him alone to negotiate with staff. But this is precisely what they should have done. The staff made a misstep because they didn't really know how to handle Meghan and Harry. They were too sulfur like. And Harry has always needed someone to look after him and he really didn't get that the family won't help him through this.

I am looking forward to listening to it, I won't buy it, and see a more balanced approach rather than the travesty that is Finding Freedom.

[Betsypaige]

Originally Posted by Denville

Doesn't sound like the book is much good.

Well, if you’re inclined to read the book, do so - don’t just go by my opinion. I am down on Lacey based in everything I’ve read, but you may feel differently. Before I’d read anything, I was already annoyed by his claim that the brothers’ rift was at least as significant as the Abdication, so I’m anti-Lacey at this time.

Poppy:

I think the point being made is rather that the staff didn't deal with the Meghan and Harry approach. It was too confrontational and they didn't know quite how to manage it right. Finding Freedom makes the point that Harry was upset that the others left him alone to negotiate with staff. But this is precisely what they should have done. The staff made a misstep because they didn't really know how to handle Meghan and Harry. They were too sulfur like. And Harry has always needed someone to look after him and he really didn't get that the family won't help him through this.

I am looking forward to listening to it, I won't buy it, and see a more balanced approach rather than the travesty that is Finding Freedom.

I’m not referring to the staff as much as I am HM and Charles. I just don’t agree with Lacey about how they badly they “handled” Meghan in particular. I shouldn’t be surprised - months ago I read an opinion piece by him about H and M that annoyed me. As far as I’m concerned, H and M had a bad attitude going in - they wanted everything done their way, changes made to accommodate Meghan on their timeframe, etc...BUT, that’s only part of the story - a part that’s been hashed to death. The main part of the book is clearly about William and Harry - and frankly I think this is book is incredibly reactionary. Lacey is going to be all over the press softly shouting about how this is on par with the Abdication, a Constitutional crisis. That really bothers me...in fact it infuriates me. He’s already like “the Palace could be doing more to stop this crisis, but they aren’t”...LOL that’s because HM - and Charles- can not force W and H to heal the rift. W and H are adults and they have to deal with this on their own. By many accounts, at least now they are talking. Plus, clearly HM and Charles are not freaking out about the feud affecting the future of the Monarchy. It’s Lacey’s business if he wants to be a Chicken Little, but his publishing that the Royal sky is falling is ridiculous. I expect a frosty, silent reaction from BP, Charles and William.

[poppy7]

Originally Posted by Betsypaige

Well, if you’re inclined to read the book, do so - don’t just go by my opinion. I am down on Lacey based in everything I’ve read, but you may feel differently. Before I’d read anything, I was already annoyed by his claim that the brothers’ rift was at least as significant as the Abdication, so I’m anti-Lacey at this time.

Poppy:



I’m not referring to the staff as much as I am HM and Charles. I just don’t agree with Lacey about how they badly they “handled” Meghan in particular. I shouldn’t be surprised - months ago I read an opinion piece by him about H and M that annoyed me. As far as I’m concerned, H and M had a bad attitude going in - they wanted everything done their way, changes made to accommodate Meghan on their timeframe, etc...BUT, that’s only part of the story - a part that’s been hashed to death. The main part of the book is clearly about William and Harry - and frankly I think this is book is incredibly reactionary. Lacey is going to be all over the press softly shouting about how this is on par with the Abdication, a Constitutional crisis. That really bothers me...in fact it infuriates me. He’s already like “the Palace could be doing more to stop this crisis, but they aren’t”...LOL that’s because HM - and Charles- can not force W and H to heal the rift. W and H are adults and they have to deal with this on their own. By many accounts, at least now they are talking. Plus, clearly HM and Charles are not freaking out about the feud affecting the future of the Monarchy. It’s Lacey’s business if he wants to be a Chicken Little, but his publishing that the Royal sky is falling is ridiculous. I expect a frosty, silent reaction from BP, Charles and William.

Well that is to sell the book .

But nothing I have read suggest he says the royal dealt badly but rather the staff.

When Lacey's biography of Princess Grace was realised in the 90's he was torn to pieces, in certain sectors, for daring to talk about the rather morally dubious parts of her live life while single. Dating married men etc

Of course it has all come out as true. No one is perfect and the royal entourage definitely didn't handle Harry and Meghan well at times. But then with some people there is no way to handle them.

The Queens private secretary has been talked about before as a misstep of an appointee...by Charles of course.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Hallo girl

I cannot believe that Lacey chose not to understand the 'message with the photographs on the queens desk. Any serious follower of HM understood it, It was the continuation of the throne, Charles, William then George .
That is the messaging that has been coming out for sometime, the Xmas puddings, the 4 standing together.Even the stamp photographs.
It is all about continuity. She has other grand and great grandchildren why not put them all on the desk.
When would she stop the photographs , once she had the first 20 in line on her desk.
Yes Harry is 6th but nobody wants the tragedy that would be required to put him on the throne.
If you look back at the Xmas broadcasts there are always photographs on her desk, relevant to what was happening within the family.
His apparent lack of understanding on this makes me question his other detail.

I am so disappointed in him I was sticking up for him in earlier posts. I was going to buy this book, but will wait until it reaches the charity shop.

It seems that's exactly why he interprets it as he does. A major happening within the family that year was 'the birth of her 8th great-grandchild'; yet, Archie was completely missing from the desk. Unlike the previous year where the major family events, i.e., the weddings of Harry & Meghan and Eugenie & Jack and Charles' 70th birthday, were highlighted.