Royals At War, The Untold Story of Harry and Meghan's Split with the House of Windsor

[Sun Lion]

Canadian presenter Alexis Slifer is claimed in "Royals At War", to have seen a secretly recorded video of the Duchess of Sussex raging about the titles of her and the Duke's offspring versus the titles of her brother and sister-in-law's children.

Caught on camera by a courtier.

Many, many pages of this book are available through the link below - no need to log in or anything - if you wish to read for yourself.

And this book, both the hardcover and the Kindle versions, are currently at number 1 and number 2 on Amazon's bestseller list - in the Royal biographies division. (Lady Colin Campbell's book is number 3 and the "Meghan Misunderstood" book at number 24.)

https://books.google.com.au/books?i...onepage&q=alexis slifer royals at war&f=false

 

[Leopoldine]

I just ordered Royals at War.

 

[TLLK]

Canadian presenter Alexis Slifer is claimed in "Royals At War", to have seen a secretly recorded video of the Duchess of Sussex raging about the titles of her and the Duke's offspring versus the titles of her brother and sister-in-law's children.

Caught on camera by a courtier.

Many, many pages of this book are available through the link below - no need to log in or anything - if you wish to read for yourself.

And this book, both the hardcover and the Kindle versions, are currently at number 1 and number 2 on Amazon's bestseller list - in the Royal biographies division. (Lady Colin Campbell's book is number 3 and the "Meghan Misunderstood" book at number 24.)

https://books.google.com.au/books?i...onepage&q=alexis slifer royals at war&f=false

If the claim of Meghan being upset about her children being mere "Lord/Lady" is true, I'm a bit surprised. Wouldn't have been explained to her by Prince Harry that when his father's reign began that their children were likely to be known as HRH Prince/Princess _______of Sussex if the Letters Patent were to be followed?

 

[Sun Lion]

I just ordered Royals at War.

Sounds like the most interesting of all the current available books Leopoldine.

Some good insights into their wedding celebrations from the bit I've seen.

And lucky old Meghan to get those diamond earrings from The Queen to mark their joint engagements in Chester. How generous.

Hope you enjoy the book, would love some insights if you choose to share after reading it.

 

[Marengo]

If the claim of Meghan being upset about her children being mere "Lord/Lady" is true, I'm a bit surprised. Wouldn't have been explained to her by Prince Harry that when his father's reign began that their children were likely to be known as HRH Prince/Princess _______of Sussex if the Letters Patent were to be followed?

This was reported in January of 2019. It seems the book does little more but repeat whatever gossip they could lay their hands on. This particular item was posted in the Daily Express, the absolute biggest pile of nonsense in the open sewer that is the English yellow press.

The article claims that 'unverified sources' saw the video. And Miss Slifer - a former Christian girl band singer - claimed to believe these nasty rumors.

So the source for these claims are that 'somebody found it somewhere on the internet' - and we all know the value of that.

--------

From a moderating point-of-view I have found and find the threads for these unresearched Sussex-books which just repeat one 'rumor' after another a bit problematic. I have been wondering if it was a good idea to allow this book to be discussed and the same goes for the nonsensical book of Lady Colin Campbell.

Lots of the trash that is written down in these books would not be allowed to stand on this website as it is on the level of tumblr-rumors with no credible source behind it whatsoever. Now the same nonsense is written down in a book all of a sudden people treat it as if it were credible - which it is not.

We now get the absurd mechanisms that the tabloids write down slanderous nonsense, that is afterwards written down by 3rd-rate journalists/authors in sensational books. These books are getting quoted again by the tabloids as a validation of whatever unverified slanderous fact they 'reported'. Thus they are creating a parallel universe of lies, half-truths and opinions dressed up as facts.

The least we can expect is that members treat whatever is written in these trashy books with a few pinches of salt and be skeptical of whatever it is that is written down. Just because it says nasty things about people you dislike does not mean that these nasty things are true. Most of you have been doing that which is why the threads have remained open. Please continue to do so.

 

[muriel]

If the claim of Meghan being upset about her children being mere "Lord/Lady" is true, I'm a bit surprised. Wouldn't have been explained to her by Prince Harry that when his father's reign began that their children were likely to be known as HRH Prince/Princess _______of Sussex if the Letters Patent were to be followed?

This can't really be true, can it?

 

[Sun Lion]

This was reported in January of 2019. It seems the book does little more but repeat whatever gossip they could lay their hands on. This particular item was posted in the Daily Express, the absolute biggest pile of nonsense in the open sewer that is the English yellow press.

The article claims that 'unverified sources' saw the video. And Miss Slifer - a former Christian girl band singer - claimed to believe these nasty rumors.

So the source for these claims are that 'somebody found it somewhere on the internet' - and we all know the value of that.

--------

From a moderating point-of-view I have found and find the threads for these unresearched Sussex-books which just repeat one 'rumor' after another a bit problematic. I have been wondering if it was a good idea to allow this book to be discussed and the same goes for the nonsensical book of Lady Colin Campbell.

Lots of the trash that is written down in these books would not be allowed to stand on this website as it is on the level of tumblr-rumors with no credible source behind it whatsoever. Now the same nonsense is written down in a book all of a sudden people treat it as if it were credible - which it is not.

We now get the absurd mechanisms that the tabloids write down slanderous nonsense, that is afterwards written down by 3rd-rate journalists/authors in sensational books. These books are getting quoted again by the tabloids as a validation of whatever unverified slanderous fact they 'reported'. Thus they are creating a parallel universe of lies, half-truths and opinions dressed up as facts.

The least we can expect is that members treat whatever is written in these trashy books with a few pinches of salt and be skeptical of whatever it is that is written down. Just because it says nasty things about people you dislike does not mean that these nasty things are true. Most of you have been doing that which is why the threads have remained open. Please continue to do so.

I'm so sorry to have started these book threads Marengo - I had no idea they were causing such distress to anyone.

As I started, I think all of the threads, I personally am more than happy to have them all deleted if you wish to do so.

I enjoy posting here on TRFs, and it has been a great outlet during Covid lockdown, but that time is passing - here where I am at least - and I have no problem with all of these being taken down.

 

[Marengo]

No worries Sun Lion and no need to apologize. I just wanted to point out that for us it is a balancing act. We allowed the books to be discussed as they are in the news and in principle we should be able to discuss here whatever it is that is discussed in the press. As long as posters treat these books with the distance and healthy skepticism these books deserve we can continue to see how it goes

 

[Alison H]

This was reported in January of 2019. It seems the book does little more but repeat whatever gossip they could lay their hands on. This particular item was posted in the Daily Express, the absolute biggest pile of nonsense in the open sewer that is the English yellow press.

There's nothing wrong with the Daily Express or most of the other tabloids ... although I do draw the line at those which tap into phone records etc, but the Express is not one of those. Yes, they print gossip, and, yes, some of it is unfounded, but they have been going for many years and are an important part of many people's lives, especially for older people who aren't as comfortable with the internet and social media.

Newsagents have reported a huge surge in orders for newspapers for home delivery since lockdown started. They are very important to people. It's quite upsetting to see them termed "an open sewer".

 

[Sun Lion]

No worries Sun Lion and no need to apologize. I just wanted to point out that for us it is a balancing act. And as long as posters treat these books with the distance and skepticism these books deserve we can continue to see how it goes

That sounds good Marengo, Cheers, Sun Lion.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Cannot compare the two situations. Kate came in, with not much of a work record, after years of dating William and social media had not exploded as it has now. Plus as already mentioned William was barely a working Royal. He was military the first few years and then private job.





LaRae

I would have to disagree that you can’t compare the two situations. Regardless of what Kate worked she was quite literally followed, hounded and harassed on a daily basis in the 7 years leading up to her engagement. There is a haunting video of her on social media, practically crying at the flashing bulbs outside of her own home and begging them to leave for which they wouldn’t do as they had every right to be there.

Meghan on the other hand, IMO, had a vast experience of social media and the press in the years before her marriage, I have seen comments about her time on Suits an such, which predate ever knowing Henry.

Meghan was the one who claimed she wanted to hit the ground running, do correct me if this is just rumour, she certainly didn’t have to. Henry was by no means a “full time royal” (again IMO) at the time of their marriage and a period of settling in would have been quite understandable.

 

[Muhler]

This was reported in January of 2019. It seems the book does little more but repeat whatever gossip they could lay their hands on. This particular item was posted in the Daily Express, the absolute biggest pile of nonsense in the open sewer that is the English yellow press.

The article claims that 'unverified sources' saw the video. And Miss Slifer - a former Christian girl band singer - claimed to believe these nasty rumors.

So the source for these claims are that 'somebody found it somewhere on the internet' - and we all know the value of that.

--------

From a moderating point-of-view I have found and find the threads for these unresearched Sussex-books which just repeat one 'rumor' after another a bit problematic. I have been wondering if it was a good idea to allow this book to be discussed and the same goes for the nonsensical book of Lady Colin Campbell.

Lots of the trash that is written down in these books would not be allowed to stand on this website as it is on the level of tumblr-rumors with no credible source behind it whatsoever. Now the same nonsense is written down in a book all of a sudden people treat it as if it were credible - which it is not.

We now get the absurd mechanisms that the tabloids write down slanderous nonsense, that is afterwards written down by 3rd-rate journalists/authors in sensational books. These books are getting quoted again by the tabloids as a validation of whatever unverified slanderous fact they 'reported'. Thus they are creating a parallel universe of lies, half-truths and opinions dressed up as facts.

The least we can expect is that members treat whatever is written in these trashy books with a few pinches of salt and be skeptical of whatever it is that is written down. Just because it says nasty things about people you dislike does not mean that these nasty things are true. Most of you have been doing that which is why the threads have remained open. Please continue to do so.

A solution could be to have members write reviews first and based on that (or perhaps a poll) decide whether a book is considered serious enough to be discussed in depth.
As well as posting excerpts before the book is published.

However, having said that, this is after all a forum and the whole purpose of this place is to discuss all things royal, also things that are uncomfortable, even infuriating for some or tiring for others.
Otherwise I'm afraid some people will take their discussion somewhere else or accuse the TRF of censorship.

Another solution could be a regular posted prefix saying:
All unnamed quotes are to be considered rumors, gossip and hearsay.
All unverifiable claims are just that: claims by the author. Like the cost of something without that being backed up by a calculation of some sort.
All unnamed statements in a book are to be considered the opinion of the author.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Harry was a 'full-time royal' when they married. He didn't have any other job. He had left the army and so his only 'job' was that of being a royal.

When William married he was still in the RAF and so was a 'part-time' royal. He then was able to extend his part-time status by being allowed to take the roll with the air ambulance.

Harry had never decided to do anything after he quit the army other than do royal duties.

 

[Leopoldine]

Sounds like the most interesting of all the current available books Leopoldine.

Some good insights into their wedding celebrations from the bit I've seen.

And lucky old Meghan to get those diamond earrings from The Queen to mark their joint engagements in Chester. How generous.

Hope you enjoy the book, would love some insights if you choose to share after reading it.

I will read it, and get back to you, Sun Lion.

 

[Hallo girl]

Cannot compare the two situations. Kate came in, with not much of a work record, after years of dating William and social media had not exploded as it has now. Plus as already mentioned William was barely a working Royal. He was military the first few years and then private job.


LaRae

That is very true and at the time , when asked what she would be doing Kate said she had a lot to learn and that is how she would be spending her time. I am sure it is in the engagement interview.
When Meghan came on the royal scene, the press, social media, her friends were all saying how she was going to change the royal family, change a 1000 years of history, etc etc etc. Long followers of the BRF not just those who became interested when Meghan arrived had a better idea of how that would pan out. Sadly it has not worked out,

 

[Denville]

Harry was a 'full-time royal' when they married. He didn't have any other job. He had left the army and so his only 'job' was that of being a royal.

When William married he was still in the RAF and so was a 'part-time' royal. He then was able to extend his part-time status by being allowed to take the roll with the air ambulance.

Harry had never decided to do anything after he quit the army other than do royal duties.

All the same that didn't mean necessarily that Meghan had to go full time royal duties. Im sure if she had chosen to do less, have her first baby and only do a small number of duties and learn more about the RF etc and the UK, the queen would have been Ok with it.. But Maybe Meghan wanted to raise her own profile as a Royal, because there was already a plan to partially leave royal work...

 

[Hallo girl]

I'm so sorry to have started these book threads Marengo - I had no idea they were causing such distress to anyone.

As I started, I think all of the threads, I personally am more than happy to have them all deleted if you wish to do so.

I enjoy posting here on TRFs, and it has been a great outlet during Covid lockdown, but that time is passing - here where I am at least - and I have no problem with all of these being taken down.

quote"Just because it says nasty things about people you dislike does not mean that these nasty things are true. Most of you have been doing that which is why the threads have remained open. Please continue to do so."

Marengo , I am sorry but it doesn't mean they are lies either.

I do not know what is true, lies or a blend, I have really enjoyed the forum the last few days, it has been interesting points of view and all done in a pleasant manner, I even changed my view on something. Lets keep it that way.

SUN LION
You have nothing to apologise for, I have enjoyed your insights, although I did tease you about being the authors agent.

Marengo , I am sorry but it doesn't mean they are lies either.

QUOTE "Just because it says nasty things about people you dislike does not mean that these nasty things are true. Most of you have been doing that which is why the threads have remained open. Please continue to do so."


I do not know what is true, lies or a blend, I have really enjoyed the forum the last few days, it has been interesting points of view and all done in a pleasant manner, I even changed my view on something. Lets keep it that way.

If the claim of Meghan being upset about her children being mere "Lord/Lady" is true, I'm a bit surprised. Wouldn't have been explained to her by Prince Harry that when his father's reign began that their children were likely to be known as HRH Prince/Princess _______of Sussex if the Letters Patent were to be followed?

I have never heard of that claim before that she was annoyed about the lack of titles, I do read a great deal about the royals although not all the social media blogs, only this one.

Could that be why they went down on the ' he is a private citizen' road and refused all the info round the birth, then the ' private ' christening but still in the private chapel of Windsor Castle.

When you think about it, other royal children were presented to the world on the ordinary steps of a hospital, in the street basically, but Archie was introduced inside Windsor castle with all the trappings that surrounded that.
The casual family photograph with the Queen ,Philip and Doria, A photographer just happened to be there.

I am going to stop thinking about all this.

 

[Sun Lion]

A solution could be to have members write reviews first and based on that (or perhaps a poll) decide whether a book is considered serious enough to be discussed in depth.
As well as posting excerpts before the book is published.

However, having said that, this is after all a forum and the whole purpose of this place is to discuss all things royal, also things that are uncomfortable, even infuriating for some or tiring for others.
Otherwise I'm afraid some people will take their discussion somewhere else or accuse the TRF of censorship.

Another solution could be a regular posted prefix saying:
All unnamed quotes are to be considered rumors, gossip and hearsay.
All unverifiable claims are just that: claims by the author. Like the cost of something without that being backed up by a calculation of some sort.
All unnamed statements in a book are to be considered the opinion of the author.

Thanks for some ideas here Muhler, appreciated.

 

[Marengo]

Marengo , I am sorry but it doesn't mean they are lies either.

This is the final thing I will say about the matter and I regret having raised the discussion in the first place. But the other option was -and still is- to close the topic all together so I thought it would be worth a try.

I really can't see why there is any validity in random statements anonymously spewed on the internet and repeated & amplified by the gossip press.

I have no great affection for the duke and duchess of Sussex - at all - but that does not mean that I need to believe every anonymous statement that I can find on the internet.

If there are credible claims to be made about them they should and can be discussed. But the example listed above about the Duchess supposedly complaining about titles has absolutely no reason to be taken seriously. AFAIK it is a story in this book is based on a Canadian former girlband singer agreeing online with a tumblr post where somebody says that they saw this video. The article in the Express got twisted by the author of this book to make it more credible - which it is not. Authors twisting facts are in general unreliable. That is something many of us remembered when discussing the book of Lady Colin Campbell and we should remember the same when discussing this book as well.

By repeating a far fetched claim from a anonymous person 'somewhere on the internet' we are amplifying this message. Some may claim that the duke of Sussex wears Minnie Mouse socks every Friday. Others may claim that the Duchess collects umbrella cover sleeves. But unless there is a credible source behind it there is absolutely no reason to assume that such random claims are true and we would all be wise to keep that in mind when discussing this book.

This forum has rules against lies, speculation, slander, gossip and innuendo. We all signed up for that when we joined this forum. It is not odd for to expect fellow posters to let these rules be a guiding principle when posting on this forum. All I have done is to point out that a healthy dose of skepticism is needed when discussing this book. As long as that is the case we can keep this discussion going.


We have been accused of heavy handed moderation and of censorship by haters of royals x, y & z for over 18 years, since Les Tribunes Royales was changed to The Royal Forums. Likewise we have been accused of allowing too much speculation, usually by fans of royals x, y & z. I understand that it may be frustrating not to be able to rant and gossip unchecked. But for better and for worse that is not the kind of forum that TRF is, was or ever will be. Those who want to engage in a parallel universe of half truths, gossip, lies and paranoia have many other social media platforms available where they can engage in these things.

 

[Sun Lion]

I will read it, and get back to you, Sun Lion.

I would really like that Leopoldine.

I've been looking at the Chapter titles and it comes across as a "breezey" kind of book, not too heavy-going.

"Carole Meets Her Captain"/"Miserably Ever After"/"Wow, Kate's Hot!"/"Windsors & Losers" etc.

It sounds like my kind of book.

(And I think one of the authors is Australian, though very Hollywood in his career, so maybe that is part of it.) Happy reading.

 

[Sun Lion]

quote"Just because it says nasty things about people you dislike does not mean that these nasty things are true. Most of you have been doing that which is why the threads have remained open. Please continue to do so."

Marengo , I am sorry but it doesn't mean they are lies either.

I do not know what is true, lies or a blend, I have really enjoyed the forum the last few days, it has been interesting points of view and all done in a pleasant manner, I even changed my view on something. Lets keep it that way.

I've also enjoyed these books - what I've seen of them - and these book threads Hallo girl.

I don't think we're yet at the definitive final understanding of this whole "Megxit" situation.

Indeed, it is still un-folding and may take many years, and some deep hindsight, before we are able to have a really true picture of everything that has happened.

My personal views keep swinging a bit.

I have a better appreciation of the Duchess' good qualities after reading the first couple of chapters of Lady Colin Campbell's book. Qualities that have served Meghan well, and easily explain the loyalty of her friends and her successes.

She and the Duke were certainly very well recieved when here in Australia.

One day I would like to see a good psychological study of the players in this drama, how things happened and why they happened.

Much, much more to come I think. And although I can't see the couple ever returning to the UK, I also don't think they are just going to wither on the vine of their new US life.

I'm actually expecting to be still quite suprised by what unfolds.


And yes, I did see your post about being LCC's agent. (I felt like it at times!)

 

[MARG]

Would it be viable for people who "believe" a source that is suspect to be required to prefix any personal response with those wonderful old prefixes:
IMO: In my opinion, or even,
IMHO: In my humble opinion.

There have been countless quarrels that are becoming acrimonious when people discuss something, whether from articles, books or other posts where people take umbrage because it offends them when all the poster wanted to do was say how they did not believe said article.

IMO and IMHO immediately let's you know a person is stating their own personal opinion whereas demanding verification of said post is usually knee jerk biting or cutting sarcasm which inevitably leads to bickering an a big padlock.

When I joined this Forum one of the most important reasons was it's near perfect rules as demonstrated by tough but clear-cut moderation and the ease with which I could separate fact from opinion. There is no shame in stating an unpopular point of view when it is clear that it is only your point of view and others could agree, disagree or debate the issue with you instead of endless circular discussions which leave you wondering.

This is a very Social Media type of tactic that seems to bring out the worst in our anonymity allowing us to all take cheap shots. Such cheap shots should remain the province of the Fashion threads with Men's Fashion (an oxymoron if ever there was one. Examples would be the late Prince Henrik' stunning sartorial style, Haarkon's passion for ugly shoes (and the less said about the even uglier galoshes the better), King Philippe's newest passion for mismatched pastel everything.

It made this a warmer, more informed, wittier, fun place to visit for a minute or two and end up staying for hours.

 

[Osipi]

Humans are discerning beasts with a lust for information. This is why there are billions upon billions of books that have been written since man learned to put symbols on a surface to convey meaning. Humans also don't necessarily think alike or see things from the same perspective than others. Humans also have different objectives for putting their thoughts down on paper for all to read. Some tell us how to do things, some teach us what has gone before, some spin tales for pure entertainment and take us to a wonderful world of fantasy and adventure and some pen books just to put food on the table or become a household name. Whatever the reason, we humans have huge resources to find out every thing we've ever wanted to know and then some.

A good researcher explores all angles and all information and takes what, to him/her, what is valuable and discards the rest. What is valuable to one is garbage to another. The fact remains that one doesn't recognize value or garbage by discarding it without reading what is presented.

This is the way of things with all books being published on the subject of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex these days. Inquiring minds want to know things. How it all went down,? Who did what? Why did things go the way they did? There is so much out there that has been printed on this couple and along with that, so many different perspectives from different angles. The beauty is being able to read them all and form opinions of our own from the information we've read.

Now, I've stated that LCC's books have not impressed me in the past and that I'll not buy her book. That's my own opinion and conclusion I've come to. Doesn't make it true for everyone. Well... maybe I would buy the book just to read it if it was available dirt cheap (I build my library on dirt cheap). For some, these recent books like "Royals at War" is everything and anything that has been printed in what some see as less than credible sources since Harry met Meghan. Its all there in one place to make a decision on. One person I think I've read every available book on regardless of the author is Diana, Princess of Wales. Kept me busy for a long time and off the streets and out of trouble. So we read books, form opinions on them and express them in an open forum. We think therefore we post.

Finally, I'm going to throw in a little plug here for all you that want a dirt cheap way to build your library on just about anything you want to know. Mine is abebooks.com. Now this place is a warehouse for books that need a home. Used books from thrift shops. Old library books out of circulation If and when "Royals at War" were to be available there for $3.49 USD with free shipping, I'd buy it. That's less than some coffees at Starbucks.

Keep reading and keep sharing what you think.

 

[Iluvbertie]

When you think about it, other royal children were presented to the world on the ordinary steps of a hospital, in the street basically, but Archie was introduced inside Windsor castle with all the trappings that surrounded that.
The casual family photograph with the Queen ,Philip and Doria, A photographer just happened to be there.

I am going to stop thinking about all this.

The reason the photographer was there was that it was planned to present Archie to a few press people along the Long Walk. That was announced the day before but then on the day itself it was raining - so they all went inside. There is nothing sinister in that development.

 

[Hallo girl]

The reason the photographer was there was that it was planned to present Archie to a few press people along the Long Walk. That was announced the day before but then on the day itself it was raining - so they all went inside. There is nothing sinister in that development.

I think I was just being over dramatic.

I treat the royal books, like I do a dramatised version. i.e. The Crown or the Tudors

I am interested on the views of others with regards books, it sometimes draws me to look at something in a different way that I had not considered before, or even read a book I had never considered.
At the end of the day unless the subject of the book writes a foreword to say everything in it is what they have provided , it doesn't matter who the author is we can never be sure what is true and what is conjecture, or picked up from social media websites.

 

[Leopoldine]

Sounds like the most interesting of all the current available books Leopoldine.

Some good insights into their wedding celebrations from the bit I've seen.

And lucky old Meghan to get those diamond earrings from The Queen to mark their joint engagements in Chester. How generous.

Hope you enjoy the book, would love some insights if you choose to share after reading it.

I sped through it and finished it this morning.

First impression, it was rushed. Typos and grammar mistakes. Also, little tiny details are wrong. For instance, when Andrew and Beatrice went to the now famous Pizza Express in Woking, the book indicates it was for her birthday. I had not read that anywhere. Her parties tended to be more elaborate anyway.

The book presents a very detailed personal portrait and assessment of Meghan. It's hard for me to ascertain how truthful it is.

The language the writer employs seems sort of crude and careless at times. I've used language like that now and again here on the board and got myself deleted.

Other than those comments, I don't want to reveal spoiler types of details until anyone here who wants to read it has done so.

If you are wondering if you should get the book, think of it this way: It's a snapshot of Harry & Meghan at a very transitional time for them as well as some background about what made them get to this point. This is the kind of thing that should be put in a time capsule to be opened in the year 2100.

 

[Osipi]

The Pizza Express outing for Andrew and Beatrice was for *a* birthday party. Not her birthday.

Looks like I'll be skipping this book.

 

[Sun Lion]

I sped through it and finished it this morning.

First impression, it was rushed. Typos and grammar mistakes. Also, little tiny details are wrong. For instance, when Andrew and Beatrice went to the now famous Pizza Express in Woking, the book indicates it was for her birthday. I had not read that anywhere. Her parties tended to be more elaborate anyway.

The book presents a very detailed personal portrait and assessment of Meghan. It's hard for me to ascertain how truthful it is.

The language the writer employs seems sort of crude and careless at times. I've used language like that now and again here on the board and got myself deleted.

Other than those comments, I don't want to reveal spoiler types of details until anyone here who wants to read it has done so.

If you are wondering if you should get the book, think of it this way: It's a snapshot of Harry & Meghan at a very transitional time for them as well as some background about what made them get to this point. This is the kind of thing that should be put in a time capsule to be opened in the year 2100.

I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts about this book Leopoldine, thank you.

I have been reading many sources myself over the last couple of weeks, and my understanding of "Megxit" has benefitted.

I thought we would have to wait - and look back in hindsight - to have an understanding of why things went the way they did.

But, at least for me, a lot of gaps have been filled, and grey areas have been explained.

There is definitely less mystery as to why the six and seventh in line to the British throne are living in America.

Could anyone have foreseen this a short while ago - it's pretty amazing. No wonder there have been books coming out.

Thank you again for giving your views on the book Leopoldine. Interesting that this author also covered an analysis of character and filled in the background of this whole situation. That is what people are looking for I think. We all "know" what happened, but want to understand why it happened.

Thanks again, appreciated.

 

[Hallo girl]

I have not read this book or any of them so I am not coming from the view of a reader but can we really know the truth, we only know versions that have been released by interested parties on both sides. I would suggest we could maybe look back at different situations and with hindsight see something we missed before, or view in a different way.
Obviously just my point of view.

 

[Tarlita]

Yes thank you for the review Leopoldine, and for not revealing any spoilers.