"Revenge" by Tom Bower (2022)

[Sun Lion]

"Revenge: Meghan, Harry and the War Between the Windsors"

The hardback edition is available in a few days and the paperback version will be released on the 2nd of August.

(Also Kindle and Audio versions being released.)

I have only read the extracts from The Times - which I won't link as they are behind a paywall.

The Sun is also serialising it to some extent and The Telegraph and Daily Mail are also reporting on it.

Mr Bower says he has 1,000 named sources and that he has not included things he was told/heard about that he could not substantiate enough.

I will post some things covered in these Times extracts that caught my attention - some more important and some just fun or trivial.

I'm thinking of buying this book, already a best-selller on pre-orders it seems, but will wait until I can pick it up and flip through it. It seems a very detailed read, so I'll see what it is like when it's in the bookstores before deciding.

I do think ... or at least hope ... it will provide some insight into why the Duke and Duchess left their UK life to try to make it in the US, as Covid notwithstanding, these last years don't seem to have been a breeze for them.

 

[Sun Lion]

Something that made me smile and perhaps showed the cultural differences/misunderstandings between the US and the UK -

When Meghan was upset, (described as "hysterical"), at the Vanity Fair cover feature about her, the head of her PR agency Ken Sunshine rang the magazine's features editor Graydon Carter and said to him "You're going to have to deal with the Queen".

Even though we're all living English-speaking, Western lifestyle lives, this to me showed a big gap between those two nations. (And Australia is different again of course.)

Anyway, I got a vision in my head of the Queen on the phone to Mr Graydon giving him a very posh ticking off.

Never going to happen of course, but to me it showed a misunderstanding of how the world of Hollywood celebrity, and how the world of the Monachy, operate.

 

[Sun Lion]

The editor of British Vogue, Edward Enninful, arranged a team of staff to create a September issue that was to never be published, as a cover for the actual issue he and thirteen other staff worked on with the Duchess.

Meghan wanted to leak some "news" about her issue to build interest ... "lighting up the internet", but Mr Enninful wanted to keep it all under wraps and then have a blockbuster suprise with it's release.

The Duchess tasked Sara Latham, her and Harry's head of communication, to delay the official UK publication date by one day so the issue could launch in the US ahead of Britian.

Vogue would not be swayed by Ms Latham nor the Duchess' American PR rep Keleigh Thomas Morgan.

Things got fraught with Ms Latham taking to ending phone calls to Vogue abruptly and she was seen crying under the pressure of it all.

 

[Sun Lion]

Harry and Meghan’s worlds clashed.

Meghan challenged Harry’s friends for their non-politically correct jokes, banter and conversations during the Sandringham weekend shoot he arranged as a way to introduce her to his circle.

Even parents of his friends who also attended the wedding in Jamaica found her uninterested in engaging with them and heavy going with “quibbles” about the food served.

 

[Sun Lion]

A big part of Meghan's history is that her letters to both Proctor and Gamble, and Mrs Clinton, were answered.

It seems this is not the case - any response young Meghan recieved was "invented" by her father wanting to be loving and encouraging to her.

(In later years Meghan had hoped the Vanity Fair cover feature that turned into the "Wild About Harry" article that caused so much upset and distress, would launch her as a humanitarian, activist and philanthropist.

The interviewer, Sam Kashner, though had not included the Proctor and Gamble information in his feature despite Meghan telling him about it, as the Vanity Fair researchers could not corroborate it.)

 

[Sun Lion]

Despite how it seemed from the outside during their tour of Australia ... and I live only a few streets away from where they were staying at Admiralty House and they drove past me one morning near Milson Point train station as I was cutting through the concourse on my way to a hairdresser on another street ... on the inside it was apparently quite different.

People collected in the streets of Kirribilli to see them drive off in the mornings, they had loud happy crowds at their events and the weather was wonderful.

But the couple exposed themselves to negative comments on the internet and caused turmoil with their staff making demands that any criticism be removed.

Mr Bower's book notes the mood back where they were staying was in fact "miserable".

 

[Sun Lion]

The Duke and Duchess had wanted to appear on the Buckingham Palace balcony during The Queen's Jubilee, but Prince Charles now saw the couple as private citizens and so they were not there or part of the carriage procession.


A legal constraint was imposed on the couple's Sussex Royal foundation.

The Duke and Duchess thought "The Foundation of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex" was going to reproduce this, but where "shocked" when they realised the trustees that were appointed were in fact independents, and it was they who would have control.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Something that made me smile and perhaps showed the cultural differences/misunderstandings between the US and the UK -

When Meghan was upset, (described as "hysterical"), at the Vanity Fair cover feature about her, the head of her PR agency Ken Sunshine rang the magazine's features editor Graydon Carter and said to him "You're going to have to deal with the Queen".

Even though we're all living English-speaking, Western lifestyle lives, this to me showed a big gap between those two nations. (And Australia is different again of course.)

Anyway, I got a vision in my head of the Queen on the phone to Mr Graydon giving him a very posh ticking off.

Never going to happen of course, but to me it showed a misunderstanding of how the world of Hollywood celebrity, and how the world of the Monachy, operate.

I completely agree. The idea that HMQ would involve herself in ticking off a magazine editor who had offended Harry's then rumored girlfriend is just so beyond crazy.

Btw...I never understood the point of that VF magazine cover...then or now.

Why would anyone care to read about Meghan Markle apart from her relationship with Harry? Few people outside of the "Suits" audience had ever heard of her.

It was the first real red flag I got about the Sussex relationship.

 

[Sun Lion]

I completely agree. The idea that HMQ would involve herself in ticking off a magazine editor who had offended Harry's then rumored girlfriend is just so beyond crazy.

Btw...I never understood the point of that VF magazine cover...then or now.

Why would anyone care to read about Meghan Markle apart from her relationship with Harry? Few people outside of the "Suits" audience had ever heard of her.

It was the first real red flag I got about the Sussex relationship.

I wasn’t up on Harry or his life at the time all that happened Moonmaiden23.

I probably caught the Sussex “bug” around the time of the wedding and that carried through until I got a better understanding of why they left the UK.

I was interested in their move to Los Angeles and then Montecito … the houses caught my attention. (Not so much their short time in Canada when they were just on a break as far as the world knew.)

If you haven’t read the “Revenge” extract about the significance of the Vanity Fair “Wild About Harry” feature a few points made by Mr Bower are:

Meghan really wanted that cover story to launch her on a bigger stage, to a bigger audience, than she had at that point in her life.

She wanted to be portrayed in a humanitarian light, not as Prince Harry’s girlfriend.

Harry had apparently warned her to avoid the topics of himself, Donald Trump, racism and a few others things.

The interviewer had profiled people like Nicole Kidman previously, but hadn’t heard of Meghan.

He visited her at her home, she gave him lunch, talking about the good food at the local market, goats cheese, quiche, good bread. She also baked him a cake.

There was some tension as both knew Harry was off limits.

The hook for the story was that “Suits” was celebrating its one hundredth episode.

(Her co-stars and the behind the scenes people on “Suits” were gobsmacked to see their co-worker get the Vanity Fair cover. It’s apparently a big deal, even to get a mention in the inside pages for a lot of Hollywood performers trying to”make it”.)

Anyway, everything got more relaxed after lunch and Meghan opened up and got herself recorded speaking about her and the Prince’s love story.

This was gold for Vanity Fair and that became the focus.

As posted above, the early activism of young Meghan was not in the article.

Pre-publication copies were received and then the dam broke when the actual magazine was seen on both sides of the ocean.

Megan contacted the interviewer as well as her PR company. It sounds like it all got very dramatic.

(The “Suits” people were disappointed their one and a half million audience didn’t increase.)

I’ve read a lot over the last years of the Duchess wishing to control her and Harry’s narrative, so think this is a major driver in her approach to life and this would have been a big blow to the fulfilment of that need.

This was a big loss of the control she was able to exercise through such things as her Tig blog and her Working Actress blog.

(Hope I haven’t bored you if you’ve read all this for yourself Moonmaiden23.)

 

[FigTree]

The fuss was about the vogue cover…that is when Latham was weeping. Not vanity Fair which is different.

The most interesting thing to me so far is the shooting party with the friends. No doubt a lot of their comments were boorish but instead of challenging them continuously Meghan should have seen this is who Harry was and the world he inhibited.

 

[Sun Lion]

The fuss was about the vogue cover…that is when Latham was weeping. Not vanity Fair which is different.

The most interesting thing to me so far is the shooting party with the friends. No doubt a lot of their comments were boorish but instead of challenging them continuously Meghan should have seen this is who Harry was and the world he inhibited.

Yes, Vogue was another fraught scenario FigTree … I posted a bit about it in #3 post above.

Mr Enninful was so hopeful at the beginning of that collaboration before things went south. Poor Sara Latham.


Agree regarding Harry’s friends, everyone was an adult, just live and let live. No-one was there to be made to feel bad about themselves for who they were or how they acted. There was no-one in charge of everyone else, Meghan was in their world, they hadn’t entered hers and were her guests.

 

[MARG]

Oh I think she did and it went on the "that's not happening" list and, to be honest, I'm not sure I blame her in this case. I think they hated that Meghan was not like the set they grew up with. She didn't keep her mouth shut and talk "Sloan Ranger" with the girls but rather she had her own ideas about things and expected the share them and be part of the conversation not an expensively dressed arm decoration.

When you think about it, she was of an age when she should have her own point of view, her own "causes" and she did but it didn't take long to see that that was not her job description.

 

[Sun Lion]

Oh I think she did and it went on the "that's not happening" list and, to be honest, I'm not sure I blame her in this case. I think they hated that Meghan was not like the set they grew up with. She didn't keep her mouth shut and talk "Sloan Ranger" with the girls but rather she had her own ideas about things and expected the share them and be part of the conversation not an expensively dressed arm decoration.

When you think about it, she was of an age when she should have her own point of view, her own "causes" and she did but it didn't take long to see that that was not her job description.

Some of the “norms” of the British social elite have shocked me MARG … for example in “Lady in Waiting” by Lady Glenconner about her aristocratic life.

I guess I would take the lie of the land and try not to be judgemental in a situation so different from my previous experiences, keep my own counsel.

I know Meghan is a different kind of person, just reading the excerpt about the Canadian fashion brand job she landed illustrates that.

But there really is something about winning people to your cause, rather than getting their backs up. The old saying about sugar and vinegar comes to my mind.

 

[MARG]

I agree, it definitely is a factor, but from the poison pills that have been dropped so far, we can at least be certain that this really is an accurately named book. It really is Tom Bower's revenge on the Sussexes.

 

[yukari]

Here's the extracts:
(DoE funeral)
Meghan, Prince Harry and the war between the royal family
Archive


(Meghan's VF interview)
The inside story of Meghan and the Vanity Fair affair
Archive


(Staying at C&C's home, Aussie tour)
Meghan felt she was the victim. Prince Harry went in to fight for her
Archive


(The Vogue story)
Meghan and Vogue editor philosophised over tea. Then it went sour
Archive


(Weekend with Harry's friends)
‘Harry must be nuts’ — what his old Etonian friends made of Meghan
Archive

 

[Sun Lion]

I agree, it definitely is a factor, but from the poison pills that have been dropped so far, we can at least be certain that this really is an accurately named book. It really is Tom Bower's revenge on the Sussexes.

Yes, I was a little taken aback when the book title first became known MARG … especially as the author already had another book called “Sweet Revenge”, (about Simon Cowell).

Mr Bower says he is a Royalist, but I personally think the title refers to the seeking of revenge by the Duchess on all who have caused her grief in life.

I think the extracts have finish now, so will have to actually read it to see if that is true.

I’ve seen where Mr Bower says he spent some time with the Duchess’ father in Mexico and that the falling out with his daughter was when she was in Canada and not related to the getting fit/being measured for a suit photo situation.

These extracts have barely scratched the surface, so we are still at the beginning of all this.

Something that occurred to me earlier when I was posting about seeing the couple drive past me here in Sydney … which struck me at the time … is how low key their visit was. ( Not the public’s reaction, but officially.)

When I spent several days watching Mary and Frederick of Denmark here in Sydney, the number of ceremonially-dressed motorbike outriders they had, with sirens blaring, really added to the drama of seeing them.

Yet Harry and Meghan, part of Australia’s own Royal Family, here officially, had none of that. The difference was striking to me.

Well, if I end up buying the book, probably the paperback version, there will no doubt be some more “aha” moments to come.

 

[Sun Lion]

Here's the extracts:
(DoE funeral)
Meghan, Prince Harry and the war between the royal family
Archive


(Meghan's VF interview)
The inside story of Meghan and the Vanity Fair affair
Archive


(Staying at C&C's home, Aussie tour)
Meghan felt she was the victim. Prince Harry went in to fight for her
Archive


(The Vogue story)
Meghan and Vogue editor philosophised over tea. Then it went sour
Archive


(Weekend with Harry's friends)
‘Harry must be nuts’ — what his old Etonian friends made of Meghan
Archive

Wonderful yukari … thanks for being able to share these. A good taste of the coming book I think.

 

[ACO]

A big part of Meghan's history is that her letters to both Proctor and Gamble, and Mrs Clinton, were answered.

It seems this is not the case - any response young Meghan recieved was "invented" by her father wanting to be loving and encouraging to her.

(In later years Meghan had hoped the Vanity Fair cover feature that turned into the "Wild About Harry" article that caused so much upset and distress, would launch her as a humanitarian, activist and philanthropist.

The interviewer, Sam Kashner, though had not included the Proctor and Gamble information in his feature despite Meghan telling him about it, as the Vanity Fair researchers could not corroborate it.)

Sam Kasher has a letter in the Times today pushing back against Bower's interview.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FYBS5a6WQAw-qlV?format=jpg&name=large

 

[miss whirley]

Sam Kasher has a letter in the Times today pushing back against Bower's interview.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FYBS5a6WQAw-qlV?format=jpg&name=large

What weak 'pushback'. Doesn't deny working with Bower. Doesn't deny the fact-checking issues with the PG story, only that he wishes he could have included it. That he wishes to have included it but couldn't, says it all. Doesn't deny the background drama. Instead he just throws in some sweet compliments to add some sugar to the books vinegar. Basically he's trying to minimize any ire from Meghan's camp.

 

[SiennaMonet]

Revenge, from the man who called her a brazen hussy, just one breath from calling her uppity.

Vanity Fair - As it's been pointed out, Sam Kasher, already pushed back. It's not a 'weak' push back, he doesn't need to do more but deny. That's already a strike against Bower, given the fact that Sam already went on the record with Gale King and told us about how lovely she was. So even then, it means Bower didn't get proper sourcing and he brought someone who could be bought by him, by Gale or cares more about his image than the truth and will back peddle. Also, it doesn't have to be the Sussex's ire, as much people would love that, it could simply be him, not wanting a book published with his name in, claiming thing's that aren't true.

People being overly upset with the cover, I doubt that. Sure, Meghan would've wanted her works to be talked about more than Harry, but nobody in the PR would, or real would expect Harry not be mentioned. Plus, at this point, she was already claimed by him, very publicly so at that point, it was fine she mentioned him, I don't see any red flags in their relationship (at that point or at all) because two people who were proud of dating each other, didn't mind telling the world they were proud dating each other. And it's not the first time a member of the RF (which Meghan wasn't at that point ) gave an okay for interview/article and didn't like how it turned out. I also find it funny how hard The Times tried to bury the letter in the back pages.

And then them not being able to fact-check the P&G story is funny. They wanted a saucy title and got it because there's legit, a Nick News about 11 year old Meghan, reading the letter she wrote, the commercial changed and she gave a speech about it at UN Women, they've had chances to correct this story and have since worked with Archewell. So, this seems to be more wishful thinking.


Emma Watson - He claims that Meghan was snubbed by Emma when Emma was there at the UN Women meeting, we have a phot of her with Meghan and she supported the Grenfell Community Cookbook when it came out.

Hillary Clinton - He claims Hillary didn't write Meghan based on the words of Thomas Markle....ha...but ignores that the Clinton's were the one of the first people to support Meghan.

Serena Williams - The most laughable claim that could be pushed back against. He claims Serena denied being her friend when we have proof of their friendship circa 2014.

Shooting Party - Yeah, this only makes Harry's friends look bad.

Queen Story - Only makes the Queen look bad.

I thought he was suppose to be an investigate investigative journalist but he's bringing theories I've read on Quora years ago.

Edit, to add more

Reitman’s - interview + plus made up story in the Daily Mail and she's shown her feet in photos before.

Thomas - Meghan refused to call him but it's shown in court doc's she kept trying to get in contact with him.

Diana's Jewels - Meghan was banned when she legit has some of Diana's jewelry

Vouge - Again, he says that Toni Morrison, Dian Fossey and two others on the cover, that were never there and that was an easy fix with...fact checking.

 

[Queen Claude]

Here's the extracts:
(DoE funeral)
Meghan, Prince Harry and the war between the royal family
Archive


(Meghan's VF interview)
The inside story of Meghan and the Vanity Fair affair
Archive


(Staying at C&C's home, Aussie tour)
Meghan felt she was the victim. Prince Harry went in to fight for her
Archive


(The Vogue story)
Meghan and Vogue editor philosophised over tea. Then it went sour
Archive


(Weekend with Harry's friends)
‘Harry must be nuts’ — what his old Etonian friends made of Meghan
Archive

Is anyone else having problems accessing the Archive articles? I used to be able to access the articles for for the past few months it takes me to a site that wants me to purchase cloud storage and/or a domain name, the url is domflow. it /store/ cloudhosting - I added the spaces because I don't want anyone to click the link in case it is malware.

I have tried this on three browsers (Firefox, Edge and Chrome) with the same result.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Revenge, from the man who called her a brazen hussy, just one breath from calling her uppity.

Vanity Fair - As it's been pointed out, Sam Kasher, already pushed back. It's not a 'weak' push back, he doesn't need to do more but deny. That's already a strike against Bower, given the fact that Sam already went on the record with Gale King and told us about how lovely she was. So even then, it means Bower didn't get proper sourcing and he brought someone who could be bought by him, by Gale or cares more about his image than the truth and will back peddle. Also, it doesn't have to be the Sussex's ire, as much people would love that, it could simply be him, not wanting a book published with his name in, claiming thing's that aren't true.

People being overly upset with the cover, I doubt that. Sure, Meghan would've wanted her works to be talked about more than Harry, but nobody in the PR would, or real would expect Harry not be mentioned. Plus, at this point, she was already claimed by him, very publicly so at that point, it was fine she mentioned him, I don't see any red flags in their relationship (at that point or at all) because two people who were proud of dating each other, didn't mind telling the world they were proud dating each other. And it's not the first time a member of the RF (which Meghan wasn't at that point ) gave an okay for interview/article and didn't like how it turned out. I also find it funny how hard The Times tried to bury the letter in the back pages.

And then them not being able to fact-check the P&G story is funny. They wanted a saucy title and got it because there's legit, a Nick News about 11 year old Meghan, reading the letter she wrote, the commercial changed and she gave a speech about it at UN Women, they've had chances to correct this story and have since worked with Archewell. So, this seems to be more wishful thinking.


Emma Watson - He claims that Meghan was snubbed by Emma when Emma was there at the UN Women meeting, we have a phot of her with Meghan and she supported the Grenfell Community Cookbook when it came out.

Hillary Clinton - He claims Hillary didn't write Meghan based on the words of Thomas Markle....ha...but ignores that the Clinton's were the one of the first people to support Meghan.

Serena Williams - The most laughable claim that could be pushed back against. He claims Serena denied being her friend when we have proof of their friendship circa 2014.

Shooting Party - Yeah, this only makes Harry's friends look bad.

Queen Story - Only makes the Queen look bad.

I thought he was suppose to be an investigate investigative journalist but he's bringing theories I've read on Quora years ago.

SM...I tend to agree with the comment you made about Harry's pals.

But why would an elderly, grieving woman like HMQ expressing a desire to avoid the additional drama and press frenzy that she knew would accompany MM's appearance at her husband's funeral make the queen look bad?

 

[ACO]

SM...I tend to agree with the comment you made about Harry's pals.

But why would an elderly, grieving woman like HMQ expressing a desire to avoid the additional drama and press frenzy that she knew would accompany MM's appearance at her husband's funeral make the queen look bad?

Well it would seem BP agrees it did because why else would "close insiders" push back against this claim. Palmer being one of the media saying as much. They tend to ignore this but clearly they didn't want that just hanging around.

 

[SiennaMonet]

SM...I tend to agree with the comment you made about Harry's pals.

But why would an elderly, grieving woman like HMQ expressing a desire to avoid the additional drama and press frenzy that she knew would accompany MM's appearance at her husband's funeral make the queen look bad?

To me, it makes it her look petty and unfocused. By the time the day of the funeral rolled around, it already been known for a week that Meghan wouldn't be attending. It's not like she found out the day of that Meghan, who had a miscarriage, a high risk pregnancy at the height of COVID, wouldn't be there.

So, to just announce that unprompted, makes her look not good. Meghan was a non-factor at that point, so he focus should've been only on Phillip or things / people happening in the UK. Not the pregnant lady in Cali.

 

[Biset]

To me, it makes it her look petty and unfocused. By the time the day of the funeral rolled around, it already been known for a week that Meghan wouldn't be attending. It's not like she found out the day of that Meghan, who had a miscarriage, a high risk pregnancy at the height of COVID, wouldn't be there.

So, to just announce that unprompted, makes her look not good. Meghan was a non-factor at that point, so he focus should've been only on Phillip or things / people happening in the UK. Not the pregnant lady in Cali.

I agree that focus should have been on Phillip. That’s why i found it distateful that their team provided details of her wreath. I don’t think she has any issues with changing the focus.

 

[Hallo girl]

To me, it makes it her look petty and unfocused. By the time the day of the funeral rolled around, it already been known for a week that Meghan wouldn't be attending. It's not like she found out the day of that Meghan, who had a miscarriage, a high risk pregnancy at the height of COVID, wouldn't be there.

So, to just announce that unprompted, makes her look not good. Meghan was a non-factor at that point, so he focus should've been only on Phillip or things / people happening in the UK. Not the pregnant lady in Cali.

You obviously do not believe other claims by the author regarding Meghan but you are willing from what I can tell believe this one about our Queen who was about to bury her husband of over70 years. Interesting.

 

[SiennaMonet]

I agree that focus should have been on Phillip. That’s why i found it distateful that their team provided details of her wreath. I don’t think she has any issues with changing the focus.

We agree to disagree because I believe there would've been extra hemming and hawing if she said/did nothing.

 

[wartenberg7]

You obviously do not believe other claims by the author regarding Meghan but you are willing from what I can tell believe this one about our Queen who was about to bury her husband of over70 years. Interesting.

Interesting indeed - I absolutely agree with you. And what´s further more interesting that people spend so much time of their lives discussing a 3rd rate american actress who misunderstandingly became a Royal for a very short time!

 

[suztav]

A third rate actress that no one -- other than the small audience who watched Suits -- even heard of! She latched onto Harry. For someone with a degree from Northwestern (she's no dummy) ... she is the one who was culturally deaf.

She knew better ... she was marrying into a very different way of life -- not to mention an entirely different country with absolutely no support network. Catherine also went through a baptism by fire, but she had her family nearby and they had her back.

Other than her mother who was 7,000 miles away, Meghan had absolutely no one. Her friends and advisors should have known better. But, she jumped in head first.

Harry -- not the brightest bulb on the shelf -- found her to be delightful and a way around being "squeezed out" by hereditary privilege/preference for William and his children.

It's still like looking at a car accident ... we just can't look away and these two -- despite all their protestations that they just want to be regular people -- well, they won't go away.

This isn't going to end well. Just when is another story!

 

[Alison H]

Harry and Meghan’s worlds clashed.

Meghan challenged Harry’s friends for their non-politically correct jokes, banter and conversations during the Sandringham weekend shoot he arranged as a way to introduce her to his circle.

.

I'm not a fan of Meghan, but I can imagine those Hooray Henries being extremely annoying. There've been rumours for years about their snotty attitude towards the Middletons. And I'm not sure that a weekend shoot is the best environment for anyone to be in, unless they're used to the huntin' shootin' fishin' lifestyle.