"Revenge" by Tom Bower (2022)

[tommy100]

I mean the whole thing should be a none issue - Harry and Meghan walked away from being official members of the RF and don't even use their own HRH - it would seem odd for their children to IMO.

I think up to the Sussex's getting in a huff and leaving the plan (as Meghan and Bower allude to) was for the children to not take up any new titles they might get when Charles becomes King - a bit like how Edward and Sophie's children are legally HRH but don't use it. The problem now is there aren't cordial relations between Charles and the Sussex's to put that in to action.

Honestly, to me the issue of future titles it is like pulling off a plaster - there will be pain when it happens but who will remember in the long run - IMO its better to take away the titles (and yes there will be a fuss) and review it when the children reach adulthood than give Harry and Meghan more opportunities to use those titles in some way or another. It prevents a possible headache further down the line.

That said, really what difference will it make? Surely Harry and Meghan wouldn't be allowed to use their children's royal titles for commercial work just like they can't use their own. So if Harry and Meghan really want to register them at school as "HRH Prince/Princess" (which I can imagine them doing) so what. Maybe the RF can get round it by issuing very strict rules on wen royal titles can / can not be used so they can't use the royal titles to create anything with money, social media etc.

Who knows maybe the Queen has something ready and will sign in before she departs this life and take the fuss it creates on her ow shoulders.

 

[Alison H]

Exactly he is in a no win situation.

Like you I thought he would want the children to have titles, and like you and me and lots of royal watchers we understood that they received the titles once Charles becomes king. Meghan put the cat among the pigeons when she inferred that Archie did not receive the title at birth for other reasons.

Once again she either didn't understand or wanted to stir the pot.

I have a feeling there is more to come from all this, it is far from over.

I find it hard to accept that she didn't understand the system. She has many faults, but being stupid isn't one of them. And I don't believe for one second that she thought it had to do with racism. IMHO, she just wanted to make a headline-grabbing accusation. When Archie was born, they said that they wanted him to be plain Master. They also played things down by only giving him two names rather than the usual three or four given to royal babies.

I don't suppose it will matter that much if Archie and Lili use the titles of prince and princess. It's not as if either of them have done anything wrong. They're just little kids.

 

[Frelinghighness]

I find it hard to accept that she didn't understand the system. She has many faults, but being stupid isn't one of them. And I don't believe for one second that she thought it had to do with racism. IMHO, she just wanted to make a headline-grabbing accusation. When Archie was born, they said that they wanted him to be plain Master. They also played things down by only giving him two names rather than the usual three or four given to royal babies.

I don't suppose it will matter that much if Archie and Lili use the titles of prince and princess. It's not as if either of them have done anything wrong. They're just little kids.

My thoughts exactly

 

[Mbruno]

I mean the whole thing should be a none issue - Harry and Meghan walked away from being official members of the RF and don't even use their own HRH - it would seem odd for their children to IMO.

I think up to the Sussex's getting in a huff and leaving the plan (as Meghan and Bower allude to) was for the children to not take up any new titles they might get when Charles becomes King - a bit like how Edward and Sophie's children are legally HRH but don't use it. The problem now is there aren't cordial relations between Charles and the Sussex's to put that in to action.

Honestly, to me the issue of future titles it is like pulling off a plaster - there will be pain when it happens but who will remember in the long run - IMO its better to take away the titles (and yes there will be a fuss) and review it when the children reach adulthood than give Harry and Meghan more opportunities to use those titles in some way or another. It prevents a possible headache further down the line.

That said, really what difference will it make? Surely Harry and Meghan wouldn't be allowed to use their children's royal titles for commercial work just like they can't use their own. So if Harry and Meghan really want to register them at school as "HRH Prince/Princess" (which I can imagine them doing) so what. Maybe the RF can get round it by issuing very strict rules on wen royal titles can / can not be used so they can't use the royal titles to create anything with money, social media etc.

Who knows maybe the Queen has something ready and will sign in before she departs this life and take the fuss it creates on her ow shoulders.

I imagine it wouldn't be so easy to register Archie and Lilibet as HRH Prince/Princess in a US school, unless the parents make HRH Prince/Princess part of the children's legal name. Does anyone know how to do that?

 

[Mirabel]

I don't suppose it will matter that much if Archie and Lili use the titles of prince and princess. It's not as if either of them have done anything wrong. They're just little kids.

True, but they won't be little forever.

And if they are still living in the US and using the titles, they will sound pretty silly, imo.

 

[TLLK]

I imagine it wouldn't be so easy to register Archie and Lilibet as HRH Prince/Princess in a US school, unless the parents make HRH Prince/Princess part of the children's legal name. Does anyone know how to do that?

Honestly I don't know how that would work in a public school. Typically children from reigning royal families who have been or are currently being educated in the U.S. usually attend private schools, so that might be easier to navigate.



Does anyone know how King Abdullah and his siblings were addressed when they attended school in the U.S.? Do Princess Madeline and Christopher O'Neil's children use their royal titles at their schools?

 

[FigTree]

True, but they won't be little forever.

And if they are still living in the US and using the titles, they will sound pretty silly, imo.

Well exactly because any titles they have will be entirely useless. So it could be they decide to deflect and ignore and let them do what they want. They don't represent the family or the state. What's a title then? Something posh people have. Prince of what exactly.

 

[FigTree]

Honestly I don't know how that would work in a public school. Typically children from reigning royal families who have been or are currently being educated in the U.S. usually attend private schools, so that might be easier to navigate.



Does anyone know how King Abdullah and his siblings were addressed when they attended school in the U.S.? Do Princess Madeline and Christopher O'Neil's children use their royal titles at their schools?

One presumes like Harry and William, Beatrice, Eugenie and the rest went to school. Charlotte Cambridge, William Wales, Beatrice York.

Madeleine's I am sure use their fathers name or a doubled barrelled name.

Their surname is Montbatten Windsor do persumably that or just Windsor. No reason to ever change.

The book doesn't talk about that or even say either was that interested in titles. It is a non issue.

 

[Sun Lion]

While I get that Meghan was driven, ambitious and so on, there are somethings about her character I just don’t get.

Destroying the official video soon after her first wedding … after forbidding the guests to take photos.

Being so ungracious to that young man who stepped back to allow her to enter the lift ahead of him.

Not just snapping at him that she “didn’t need that”, but going into a tirade at him for the length of the trip. How awful for him.

She had something in her that was so at odds to how she would need to control herself to be successful in a Royal role.

 

[Curryong]

How do we know that Meghan snapped at a young man about getting into a lift? I get that Bower believed it but were there dozens of witnesses to that particular behaviour to the young man?

I say that because a guy I knew in my particular region of Victoria swore black and blue that a certain prominent local politician was an absolute b to him during his time in local politics and said he had witnesses to said behaviour (but never produced them.) It turned out that he had disliked this said politician during their schooldays and therefore every look, every nuance, every remark was later in life interpreted as being nasty, prejudicial etc.

Ever since hearing that from one of that man’s relatives I’ve never taken those sorts of prejudicial comments about the famous as gospel unless they are backed by at least half a dozen other individuals or evidence such as video clips, photos etc. Such as for example a certain female member of the BRF who was observed and filmed by a Press photographer shouting at her RPO in public several years ago.

 

[Sun Lion]

How do we know that Meghan snapped at a young man about getting into a lift? I get that Bower believed it but were there dozens of witnesses to that particular behaviour to the young man?

I say that because a guy I knew in my particular region of Victoria swore black and blue that a certain prominent local politician was an absolute b to him during his time in local politics and said he had witnesses to said behaviour (but never produced them.) It turned out that he had disliked this said politician during their schooldays and therefore every look, every nuance, every remark was later in life interpreted as being nasty, prejudicial etc.

Ever since hearing that from one of that man’s relatives I’ve never taken those sorts of prejudicial comments about the famous as gospel unless they are backed by at least half a dozen other individuals or evidence such as video clips, photos etc. Such as for example a certain female member of the BRF who was observed and filmed by a Press photographer shouting at her RPO in public several years ago.

We know Curryong, because Mr Bower said he only included things in his book that he could verify.

He also said that he was told much more that he chose not to put in.

If he couldn’t prove what he was told, to the extent of the things he did include, he left those other things out.

He set himself a high bar I think … and being an ex-barrister, made sure he was sue-proof if the need should ever arise.

 

[Curryong]

So I take it that this young man was backed by half a dozen witnesses to said behaviour?

Or probably by only this one individual who imparted that particular information and agreed to sign off on it for the book. Not good enough for me, I’m afraid.

 

[Sun Lion]

So I take it that this young man was backed by half a dozen witnesses to said behaviour?

Or probably by only this one individual who imparted that particular information and agreed to sign off on it for the book. Not good enough for me, I’m afraid.

Well Meghan’s live-in partner of the time was also there, the chef, he is named as being present Curryong.


I’m afraid it is not the only time the book relates Meghan as being less than gracious to those around her, this example is just one of many.

(The Reitmans thing for example, crew and ad people numbering eighty … all in her line of fire apparently, and glad to get away from her.)

 

[tommy100]

I take it everything you see or say you see is backed by a dozen witness who would swear to it?

What a frankly ridiculous notion that only things that have dozens of eyewitness can be true.

I mean, in Finding Freedom we heard highly intimate details from Harry and Meghan's trip to Botswana that only Harry and Meghan were around for. Do we disbelieve them as there weren't eyewitnesses to swear to it?

I trust someone who has written 15 biographies and never once been successfully sued to know what should or should not be included and what can and can not be backed up.

Even if people choose to disbelieve certain specific incidents the fact there are so many stories of Meghan being rude to people says a lot IMO. Like any book, we all have to take what we read with a certain grain of salt but we also have to evaluate everything we read and make judgements. Bower's book (and other sources) make clear there are a lot of people willing to speak out about Meghan's behaviour to them in less than glowing terms. To me the most noticeable thing is how many of those people have been very close to her a one point and then dropped.

 

[kalnel]

Curryong and Sun Lion, I think you're both right! Bowers must have done an excellent job fact-checking, or the lawsuits would already be flying But, people do love spreading nasty comments about celebrities.

I question some things Bowers has in the book -- there are flat out errors -- but I also look at the many reports he offers of some of Meghan and Harry's behavior and think, "Where there's smoke, there's fire."

You have to be a discerning reader and make up your own mind on books like this.

 

[Curryong]

Well if the Reitmans and ad people number eighty then that is as many people as Bower asserted in interviews he had signed up in his entire book, without allowing for any others. If he signed up ten from Reitmans who clashed with her that leaves seventy who were OK about meghan or refused to complain about her to Bower.

 

[Marengo]

Some will believe Bower's claim that all sources have been verified while others will question the exent to which this may have been done.

No matter how often we repeat these points, there is no way we will know for sure as none of us sat next to Bower during the writing process. And there is no way we will all agree on this matter either. So let's move on as the point has been made and made again.

 

[Curryong]

I take it everything you see or say you see is backed by a dozen witness who would swear to it?

What a frankly ridiculous notion that only things that have dozens of eyewitness can be true.

I mean, in Finding Freedom we heard highly intimate details from Harry and Meghan's trip to Botswana that only Harry and Meghan were around for. Do we disbelieve them as there weren't eyewitnesses to swear to it?

I trust someone who has written 15 biographies and never once been successfully sued to know what should or should not be included and what can and can not be backed up.

Even if people choose to disbelieve certain specific incidents the fact there are so many stories of Meghan being rude to people says a lot IMO. Like any book, we all have to take what we read with a certain grain of salt but we also have to evaluate everything we read and make judgements. Bower's book (and other sources) make clear there are a lot of people willing to speak out about Meghan's behaviour to them in less than glowing terms. To me the most noticeable thing is how many of those people have been very close to her a one point and then dropped.

We don’t know though exactly why a lot (actually eighty, at least two of whom complained about Bower’s use of them after the book was published) were dropped, and it might be because of their own behaviour perhaps.

Also, Bowers was sued by lawyers for his Jeremy Corbyn biography.

From Wikki
In 2019, a biography of Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn, Dangerous Hero, was published. Serialised at length in the Mail on Sunday, it was a number two Sunday Times bestseller.[30][31] The book accused Jeremy Corbyn of being an anti-Semitic Marxist. The book has been seriously criticised by Peter Oborne, writing in Middle East Eye, for its lack of referencing, alleged factual errors and the systematic omittance of relevant facts.[32]Stephen Bush, writing in The Guardian, referred to the book as a "hatchet job" littered with "rudimentary errors"[33] and journalist Oscar Rickett called it "garbage".[34] In the book, he (Bower) made false allegations against the Palestinian Return Centre. Along with the publisher HarperCollins he made a full, unqualified withdrawal of the allegations, but neither apologised nor paid any money to the complainant or the lawyers. The allegations are to be removed from all future editions of the book.[35]The Mail on Sunday and MailOnline which serialised the book had to pay full damages and issue a written apology.

Sorry. I was still typing and I posted before seeing the Mod post above. Sorry, Marengo!

 

[Sun Lion]

Some will believe Bower's claim that all sources have been verified while others will question the exent to which this may have been done.

No matter how often we repeat these points, there is no way we will know for sure as none of us sat next to Bower during the writing process. And there is no way we will all agree on this matter either. So let's move on as the point has been made and made again.

Thanks Marengo, happy to.

 

[tommy100]

Good call. I find it interesting how so many people can read the same thing and all take it/interpret it so differently.

It will be interesting to see if Harry responds to any of the comments/claims in Bower's book when his own is released. Until then, there isn't much more to say.

 

[Sun Lion]

Good call. I find it interesting how so many people can read the same thing and all take it/interpret it so differently.

It will be interesting to see if Harry responds to any of the comments/claims in Bower's book when his own is released. Until then, there isn't much more to say.

That’s a good point tommy100 about Harry’s forthcoming book.

And the new book announced by Mr Scobie also presents another opportunity for rebuttal/clarification too by the Sussexes and their advisors.

 

[FigTree]

Tom Bower’s booked mentioned nothing I hadn't heard since Meghan and Harry started going out. I think the shooting party was the only thing.

Many of those well known stories were glossed over. Obviously it says a lot about her early life and career I didn't know.

As someone upthread said you need to be decerning about the information given it little thought after that.

It really isn't really judgemental on anyone just states the points. Le I said early many people are not mentioned at all...and they includes next all the royals. It doesn't even pretend to give us insight into them.

 

[Somebody]

The book discusses Meghan's trip to Rwanda for World Vision and describes it is one large (fashion) photo shoot. Someone took a closer look at one of the pictures and in her sunglasses the reflection of the 'reflector' (used for photoshoots) is visible.

 

[kalnel]

The book discusses Meghan's trip to Rwanda for World Vision and describes it is one large (fashion) photo shoot. Someone took a closer look at one of the pictures and in her sunglasses the reflection of the 'reflector' (used for photoshoots) is visible.

This is a good example of an incident that struck me as Bower maybe not telling the whole story. I can believe that Meghan (and many other starlets) might try to bring a fashion photographer, stylist, and makeup person on a trip to an African village. (As ridiculous and tone-deaf as that sounds.)

But, I wonder why World Vision put up with it. A simple, "No, we won't pay for that. It's not appropriate," would have solved the problem. Meghan was not a star with enough clout to command perks like that. Celebrities at her level in 2016 are a dime a dozen, so they could have replaced her easily.

So, I have to wonder if World Vision wanted a glossy magazine shoot to publicize its efforts. There may be more to that whole trip than Bowers' report suggests.

Just a thought.

 

[tommy100]

I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle - of course a charity paying for an actress to visit will be hoping to get pictures from it to help raise awareness further but I guess they would also hope that actress would be passionate enough about the causes to want to do more than just take photos as the primary aim.

 

[Sun Lion]

The book discusses Meghan's trip to Rwanda for World Vision and describes it is one large (fashion) photo shoot. Someone took a closer look at one of the pictures and in her sunglasses the reflection of the 'reflector' (used for photoshoots) is visible.

Thanks Somebody, I hadn’t read the “Rwanda” chapter … have just now … and have found the photo you are referring to on the internet.

It’s a shame as it is actually a great photo, but seeing the staff holding up the light-reflector in her sunglasses takes away the idea of it being a spontaneous, happy moment.

 

[Sun Lion]

This is a good example of an incident that struck me as Bower maybe not telling the whole story. I can believe that Meghan (and many other starlets) might try to bring a fashion photographer, stylist, and makeup person on a trip to an African village. (As ridiculous and tone-deaf as that sounds.)

But, I wonder why World Vision put up with it. A simple, "No, we won't pay for that. It's not appropriate," would have solved the problem. Meghan was not a star with enough clout to command perks like that. Celebrities at her level in 2016 are a dime a dozen, so they could have replaced her easily.

So, I have to wonder if World Vision wanted a glossy magazine shoot to publicize its efforts. There may be more to that whole trip than Bowers' report suggests.

Just a thought.

I also wonder why so many people, over so many years …empowered, experienced professionals in many cases, not just low-level employees … put up with Meghan’s behaviour kalnel.

I’ve just read of more people in tears from how she treated them … that manicurist, “it still haunts me”.

I also don’t understand why she, Meghan, didn’t see the downside.

She didn’t do herself any favours by her attitude and actions. In fact, she lost some great deals and opportunities everyone, her and her team, had worked hard to create. (The half a million dollar watch deal for example.)

I haven’t finished the book … some chapters I’ve read multiple times … but in the end, its all depressing.

Meghan’s skills and hard graft, keeping on going after constant setbacks, serious setbacks vs this self-destructive side.

Hard to understand.

 

[kalnel]

Yes, I've thought the same thing reading the book. It's amazing that so many people apparently indulged outrageous behavior. Obviously some people were in fear of losing their jobs and reputations, but others -- like the World Vision or Reitmans execs -- could have kicked her to the curb.

 

[Leopoldine]

I just finished the book. It IS depressing.

I won't rehash aspects of the book that others here have already addressed. I will say that Bower's observations about inept and unprepared palace staff were interesting and piqued my interest in the upcoming book by Valentine Low.

 

[Sionevar]

I just finished the book. It IS depressing.

I won't rehash aspects of the book that others here have already addressed. I will say that Bower's observations about inept and unprepared palace staff were interesting and piqued my interest in the upcoming book by Valentine Low.

Depressing is the word I would use as well. It left me unimpressed with many people, not just H&M. I would not want to work for, or marry into the BRF.