"The Palace Papers" by Tina Brown (2022)


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Prinsara

Prinsara

Heir Apparent
Joined
Feb 4, 2020
Messages
4,976
City
A place to grow
Country
Canada
https://wapo.st/3vcu1SW

Full title "Inside the House of Windsor — The Truth and Turmoil". A new book by the former editor of the New Yorker and Tatler focuses on all the recent Windsors, including Catherine, Harry, Meghan, and Andrew (who is apparently mean to Sarah). The review is long and interesting.

Please respect the mod team's wishes and only discuss the Sussexes if it's derived from something in this book to avoid thread closure.
 
I've just been watching a documentary about Paul Gascoigne, the former England footballer, and how the tabloids' obsession with him drove him to a drink and drugs overdose which nearly killed him. I appreciate that scandal about royals and celebs sells a lot better than "nice" articles and books, but why do we have to have yet another book going on about turmoil and bad relationships and all the rest of it?

As far as I can see from the first review, Tina Brown has slagged off Harry, Meghan, Charles, Andrew and even the Queen. And, yes, this'll probably attract far more attention than a book saying nice things about them all. But it's wearisome, and really rather depressing.
 
Camilla Tominey's review of the book (which is behind a paywall here) is an interesting read. I particularly like the following excerpt / commentary:

Brown’s turn of phrase – honed by decades at the helm of Tatler, Vanity Fair and The New Yorker – is also the stuff of The Queen and The Crown creator Peter Morgan’s scriptwriting dreams. (Although he got that scene with the stag in The Queen wrong, apparently. In his 2006 blockbuster starring Helen Mirren, a tearful monarch sees the beast walking through the Balmoral heather in an epiphany which appears to give her strength in the aftermath of Diana’s death. In reality, a courtier tells Brown: “The Queen would have shot it.”)

?
 
I know we're not meant to discuss Harry, but I see that the book says that he consulted MI6 about seeing a therapist. Using someone's mental health issues, whether that's Harry's or anyone else's, to sell a book and make money is just horrible. After Caroline Flack took her own life, there was so much talk about kindness and the need to remember that famous people are actually human beings and that their lives are not just soap operas which are there for other people's entertainment. And apparently the book tells us what sort of toilet roll Prince Charles likes. Does anyone actually care what sort of toilet roll Prince Charles likes?! I shan't be reading this!
 
It's fine to discuss things about Harry and Meghan that are in the book, like it's fine to discuss the other people featured. The mods just don't want every piece of Sussex tabloid gossip and bickering brought in here or this thread to be used to discuss current/unrelated things about them with their thread closed, that's all.

I actually think Ms. Brown seems to provide explanations for things that make a reasonable amount of sense and she seems to be relatively sympathetic towards everyone, except maybe Andrew (who's not particularly deserving of any). She also details how intrusive tabloid spying interfered with Harry's life. And she has a pretty wide-ranging scope: everyone from Thomas Markle Sr. to Ghislaine Maxwell is included. I haven't spent money on a hardcover book in a few years, but this one is making a strong case to me.
 
Last edited:
Alison H said:
I know we're not meant to discuss Harry, but I see that the book says that he consulted MI6 about seeing a therapist. Using someone's mental health issues, whether that's Harry's or anyone else's, to sell a book and make money is just horrible. After Caroline Flack took her own life, there was so much talk about kindness and the need to remember that famous people are actually human beings and that their lives are not just soap operas which are there for other people's entertainment. !
Click to expand...


Will Harry sue her? I don't think so.
 
The Washing Post review is just what I needed. It's a hit piece, under the guise of hitting at all of them but the only one person actually gets hit.

That being said, Tina knows her audience. She did a interview for it on a American morning show (CBS? I think, I only heard audio ) and she was very careful not to hit like she would on UK TV.

Another fun note, if anyone cares, the publishing house has been contacting Sussex supporters on twitter and offering them a free copy of the book before release.
 
Alison, I very much agree with you re scandulous books, articles etc that it's real shame and I don't plan to buy Tina Brown's book. Especially when there so many difficult things happening in the world I would much rather read some positive things while acknowleging that there is also a place for constructive criticism-I think of the Queen's 1992 speech where she pointed out that scruntiny could be just as effective given with a touch of gentleness. I have encouraged to see, though that there some very nice publications being brought out to mark the Queen's Platinum Jubilee-I bought 2 recently, one was by Hello Magazine and the other by Illustrated London News. I'm sure I will make further purchases like that.


And as you also rightly point out we shouldn't forget the human cost there can be to well know individuals when excessive interest is shown into their private lives.








Alison H said:
I've just been watching a documentary about Paul Gascoigne, the former England footballer, and how the tabloids' obsession with him drove him to a drink and drugs overdose which nearly killed him. I appreciate that scandal about royals and celebs sells a lot better than "nice" articles and books, but why do we have to have yet another book going on about turmoil and bad relationships and all the rest of it?

As far as I can see from the first review, Tina Brown has slagged off Harry, Meghan, Charles, Andrew and even the Queen. And, yes, this'll probably attract far more attention than a book saying nice things about them all. But it's wearisome, and really rather depressing.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I listened to it. Enjoyed it. She has a very accessible way with words. Obviously Andrew came across as appalling. Charles very Eeyore like. She points to many of them suffering from entitlement: Charles, Andrew, Harry. She treats all of them except Andrew with sympathy and quite firmly places a lot of the failure of Meghan at Harry's door. In he didn't really prepare her and she had no experience of the UK before getting married. Meghan wanted to be famous and have a platform. Lots of people do. It treats them very pragmatically.

Anne, Edward, Sophie, Beatrice, Eugenie are not mentioned really. Sophie a bit.
 
Last edited:
Forgive my ignorance but what does "Eeyore like" mean?
 
Muhler said:
Forgive my ignorance but what does "Eeyore like" mean?
Click to expand...

The donkey from Winnie the Pooh. Glum. Always moaning.

Eeyore is a fictional character in the Winnie-the-Pooh books by A. A. Milne. He is generally characterized as a pessimistic, gloomy, depressed, anhedonic, old grey stuffed donkey who is a friend of the title character, Winnie-the-Pooh
 
Muhler said:
Forgive my ignorance but what does "Eeyore like" mean?
Click to expand...

The Winnie-the-Pooh donkey. Always depressed and glum, never lively or optimistic. (While I think Charles does have a lot of enthusiasm for a lot of things, he can get very negative, moan, and catastrophize. And of course he has or had a fairly serious public persona to begin with — although that's not entirely true. Just not charismatic.)
 
Last edited:
Thanks. :flowers:

Hmm, I seem to know quite a few Eeyore's. :ermm:
 
This is why "not entirely true"; Eeyore would never do this. Nor would his parents, for that matter.
Charles just seems to have a lifelong case of being awkward that he's probably only shed since his second marriage. (The first one certainly didn't help.)
 
White men can't dance. :lol:

I can't dance if my life depended on it. So I won't blame Charles for that one though. ?
 
He can dance. (She was just better.)
Aside from how most people would never try dancing at something they're completely unfamiliar with in front of other people in a million years :previous:, the first couple of chapters of the book do underline how Camilla is integral to his confidence, for better or for worse.

(Although you can see him and Diana actually laughing and smiling there. Sadly.)
 
I think her point was more he can be quite maudlin about things. Like one particularly funny anecdote which has him going around saying: Do they really not like me (or some such) after a government minister gave an honest answer to a question. Then Camilla barked back: I don't think anyone can handle you going around like that for a week. She's definitely the point that he is far happier in his second marriage.

She has a very nonjudgemental view on her reporting on everyone except Andrew.

I mean Camilla and Kate come out of it level headed and focused...even if in Camilla's case it was morally dubious because they were both married. Will comes across very capable and actually his advice to Harry extremely well thought out really. Harry comes out of it extremely fragile, entitled and tumultuous. Meghan blinkered.

She makes the very good point that all the Windsor women are treated appallingly by the press and has stories of Sophie, Camilla, Fergie and Kate being in tears.

She is also very much on the women's side. Fergies marriage failed because of her loneliness and his borishness. Meghans troubles could have been helped by her husband taking William's advice or actually preparing her. Waiting taking a few years to build up work
She does picture them as choas. Kate played a perfect game and has a tremendously stable and supportive family who nevertheless tells her the way it is when she is upset about thr media. Margaret was a wonderful mother.
 
Last edited:
:previous: So it's actually a good and fair account she's giving?
Would you recommend it?

As far Charles and Di dancing. It helps having something to hold on to. And that sort of dancing is ideal for men: You basically just walk, while your partner moves her feet away to avoid you stepping on them.
 
FigTree said:
Margaret was a wonderful mother.
Click to expand...

While that makes sense, given that David and Sarah have basically turned out fine, I just have to ask...how was that managed? Given her tumultuous life.

(Not even Lady Anne Glenconner really went into it.)
 
Prinsara said:
While that makes sense, given that David and Sarah have basically turned out fine, I just have to ask...how was that managed? Given her tumultuous life.

(Not even Lady Anne Glenconner really went into it.)
Click to expand...

Well that point is also made. She did make the point that she was a responsive mother. David was unhappy in school. She moved him. She would not have let Charles suffer in Gordonson.

Also her children saw her more and weren't royal. It helped.

I think ultimately she could and did let her children be who they wanted to be. The Queen was rather hemmed in that respect.

Muhler said:
:previous: So it's actually a good and fair account she's giving?
Would you recommend it?q.
Click to expand...

I liked it. I liked her writing style and her: hears the evidence attitude. I liked the fact she didn't set out to picture any of then in a certain way. I think I like her.

If you are a big fan of Charles, Andrew, Harry or Meghan. As in think they are saints you may not like it that much.

I would also recommend the current Dynasties podcast.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm finding it to be an entertaining read, and surprisingly even handed. No one, including the Queen, is put on a pedestal, and the inside anecdotes are revealing and quite often amusing. It is definitely not a hatchet job, and if Tina Brown has an agenda, it's extremely well hidden.
 
Prinsara said:
This is why "not entirely true"; Eeyore would never do this. Nor would his parents, for that matter.
Charles just seems to have a lifelong case of being awkward that he's probably only shed since his second marriage. (The first one certainly didn't help.)
Click to expand...

For the things I don't like about Charles....

I feel like he has his own charm, I find him forward thinking in a few things and I give him props for the good old college try with the dancing, he's engaged at least and looks like he might be having fun? Or at least that he could laugh at himself (or managing other people laughing at him.)


As for Tina, I'm still not convinced by some of the interviews, she's given. She made no mention the major leak that happened that Harry would have really blown Harry's fuse.

And most recently, for the DM, she said they'd have to use or it'd be a good idea to use the passing of the Queen to reel H in and dismisses Meghan by saying maybe they'll figure out a commuter arrangement as if she isn't his wife.

It's quite nasty.
 
SiennaMonet said:
For the things I don't like about Charles....

I feel like he has his own charm, I find him forward thinking in a few things and I give him props for the good old college try with the dancing, he's engaged at least and looks like he might be having fun? Or at least that he could laugh at himself (or managing other people laughing at him.)


As for Tina, I'm still not convinced by some of the interviews, she's given. She made no mention the major leak that happened that Harry would have really blown Harry's fuse.

And most recently, for the DM, she said they'd have to use or it'd be a good idea to use the passing of the Queen to reel H in and dismisses Meghan by saying maybe they'll figure out a commuter arrangement as if she isn't his wife.

It's quite nasty.
Click to expand...

Meghan isn’t royal though. And quite frankly it is time we stopped making the women who marry into the royal family give up their life. The men don’t. Most liberal thing any royal staff did was to suggest to Meghan that they would help her if she wanted to keep acting. She was insulted. But it’s time we stopped. Why should they. If you marry the heir it’s tough but there is no reason Meghan ever needed to work for them. She would probably be happier. It is everything that is wrong with us…breaking them down to their clothes, weight, nail polish. It doesn’t show us in a good light and it needs to change. And instead of blaming the media, who print what sells, we need to look at our discriminatory embedded social norms and realise that actually they are out of date and we need to move on.

I sincerely hope that if Charlotte and Louis work for the firm that any future spouse be allowed to keep their own careers if they want…and be given the choice to do what they want. Wouldn’t it be something if George’s future partner actually had a life focus that wasn’t royal. Now that would be progress. We can dream.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Y
"A Royal Life" by HRH The Duke of Kent and Hugo Vickers (2022)
Replies
1
Views
1K
Somebody
Somebody
Jacknch
  • Locked
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex: Transition & Future
20 21 22
Replies
651
Views
84K
Jacknch
Jacknch
Muhler
"Under the Beam" by Jens Andersen (2018) [Crown Prince Frederik of Denmark]
2 3
Replies
67
Views
41K
bcdr72
B
S
"The Diana Chronicles" by Tina Brown (2007)
11 12 13
Replies
374
Views
54K
lionellebronmc
lionellebronmc
Anna was Franziska
  • Locked
DNA and the law
4 5 6
Replies
153
Views
23K
Warren
Warren

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom