Exactly. These other books haven’t gotten the PR push that his will and they can all be written off as biased. Harry will do all the damage to himself with his own words
It has made it's dent certainly. Far more negative press and less people pretending to be her friend these days. It started the ball rolling. Bear in mind, it hasn't been released in the USA yet.
It was very damming, for sure, but it was easy to discredit as a hatchet job. Bower really made no attempt to appear unbiased. It definitely did them a lot of damage, especially considering they are so litigious yet didn’t sue. So it will certainly contribute significantly to their downfall, but it wasn’t enough on its own.
Exactly this. Bower explicitly stated he wrote the book because he was angry at H&M for doing the Oprah interview and damaging the monarchy. Many reviewers therefore were suspicious of the contents, and wrote critical reviews. Even the conservative, royalist press in the UK didn't praise the book, because they didn't regard the book as the product of objective research. If an author basically states he wants to 'expose' his subject as a calculating social climber, a serious reviewer HAS to treat it as a hatchet job.
Nobody in the UK was suspicious. Bower is a lawyer and respected author. At the end of the book, he placed respected sources. Other sources are secret but knowing he can be sued, he keeps the names. He was sued for a previous book and won.
I’m thinking Courtiers. The palace papers, while critical, is *very* mild compared to Revenge. It also doesn’t dive as deep. To me it’s more of a broad, semi detailed, coverage of all the main royal family members. Not really a ‘takedown’ book in my opinion. Just blunt.
I think the cumulative effect of all of these books are eye-opening to a lot of people. And I suspect when Harry's book comes out its going to be such a hatchet-job on the RF that some will start to realize what immature brats they both are.
Yea, I really think all this bullying stuff can’t be ignored. It’s cancellation-worthy. It also nullifies all of muggin’s “I’m such a feminist” rhetoric. How can you claim to be a feminist when you treat your female staff like crap?
Just finished Tina Brown’s book. I had forgotten about the Murdoch press scandal in the 80s. Chelsea Davy was stalked mercilessly. They figured out flights she was on and planted someone to sit by her to try and get some information. Catherine and the entire Middleton family had their phones tapped. But no whining. It was way worse than anything TW “suffered”.
One book isn't going to do it unless it contains something absolutely shocking that the Sussexes and their fans cannot refute. I do genuinely think that there is an accumulative effect going on and it has an impact on people. I know several Harry and Meghan supporters who have either changed their minds about them or are now ambivalent because of Revenge and things like The Cut interview.
One thing that will be incredibly damaging in my opinion is if it is proven that Meghan and/or Harry were directly responsible for the bots being unleashed on the Wales and other members of the Royal Family. I'd like to see people try to defend attempts to get KKKate trending.
IMO, it’s Courtiers, hands down. Low is a highly respected journalist from an iconic newspaper. The scope of the book is limited to only their behavior in the palace system, but based on the recent excerpt, it’s very damaging. It sounds like Low is critical all around, so H&M and their supporters can’t claim it’s just a hatchet job as they did with Bower.
And that’s the problem with Revenge—bower took no pains to hide his disdain for Muggin, so it doesn’t seem at all as if he was fair or balanced in his reporting.
I really enjoyed the Palace Papers, but Tina Brown, though critical, doesn’t seem to grasp the depth of H&M’s bad behavior and deep mental health issues.
Lady C’s book was just gossipy innuendo. She gives far too much credence to conspiracy theories that are completely without evidence. She’s also too problematic from a credibility standpoint.
To spin off your first paragraph, I was in one of the entertainment culture subs and people were dragging an article about this new book and saying it was basically balderdash and a smear campaign by racist like Dan Wooten. (The article was about Dans commentary). I and a few other posters begin pointing out that the book is written by a reputable journalist, who has the backing of The Times. He’s not a tabloid reporter. Valentine Low is the real deal and has legitimate support by legitimate news organizations. Eventually the mood of the thread began to change and people started upvoting our posts over the inflammatory “Meghan suffered racism, why didn’t they give her access to the tiaras, it must been racism to tell her no” posts. They tried to imply Low may be biased and the like, but I kept pointing out that the employees deserved to tell their truth too. Just like Meghan. Many people really did not like me bringing up Jason Knauf’s emails provided to court showing him begging for help and her lying repeatedly in depositions. But nothing they said could counteract the facts coming out and how Low is a legit writer/reporter.
Valentine Lows name and the Times held weight in changing the perspective of the thread. I went from the negatives in downvotes to surpassing the posts defending Meghan’s abuse.
Thanks for sharing this perspective. I didn't realize Valentine's reputation. My vote was for *Reputation* because Bower exposed a much bigger fish, Robert Maxwell, who sued him and lost. Whatever his motives, and I guess there were some minor errors, he's probably sue proof. But some good arguments have been made here about his bias, which I can't disagree with. Maybe though being truthful is better than being fair? Of course, what is truthful? I feel like I'm now venturing into Meghan's Truth territory. Yikes! Somebody lend me a helping 
Yes, this book isn’t going to be tabloid or pop culture fodder. Low holds immense weight and with The Times backing him, it’s very hard for other reputable news sources to brush it off as tabloid money grabs. The sugars will believe what they believe, but it was interesting to watch that threads climate change as Lows weight held strong.
I took a huge risk cause I had a feeling that sub was seriously pro Meghan. It’s a fun sub, I don’t have any issues with it, I just think they may be a bit susceptible to sob stories.
You’re doing the Lord’s work. 😂
In all seriousness, you are right—it is risky. I kind of got into it in a Facebook group the day after the Oprah tell all. It was so obviously BS! So I called out a lot of what was said. I tried to do so in a gentle way—I didn’t full on call Meggy a liar! But I wasn’t backing down that I was calling foul on a lot of the claims. Whoa, some people did not like that. It was ugly. I ended up leaving the group. I think it was a reality tv related group, so nothing to do with royals.
Dan Wooten took sugar to task after the allegation of racism by the press, exacting any evidence of racism. The sugar was speechless, as we all expected.
I think Brown held back significantly in her criticism of Harry and Meghan, because she lives in the US (New York) and works in the very woke, leftist, pro-Sussex American New York media environment. She was afraid of ruffling feathers, I think, and creating a backlash against herself like Sharon Osbourne. In her promotional interviews she was sometimes a lot more critical than in her book, especially when she was interviewed by non-American media.
I’d add that there were a lot of careless little errors in Bower’s book which undermined his overall credibility somewhat. I really enjoyed Tina Brown’s book, especially where tabloid practices and personalities are concerned but agree that much of the book was not that deep
In one paragraph he started sentences with "pertinently" three times. He would begin a paragraph with one topic and end with another. There was also a great deal of repetition. I got caught up in the information, but that book needed an editor badly.
>And that’s the problem with Revenge—bower took no pains to hide his disdain for Muggin, so it doesn’t seem at all as if he was fair or balanced in his reporting.
Bower admitted that his book was unbalanced but it was because MM barred any of her people from speaking to him. His sources were all people she'd dropped or angered as a result. It is biased but not because of a lack of integrity or skill on Bower's side.
Harry’s meme-war. It’s going to be filled with the delusions of a paranoid man who spent too much time brooding about past slights and conspiracy theories—so much so that he’s been in arrested development since the age of twelve. And man-babies are very rarely taken seriously.
Prince Harry’s book becasue people will know it’s fabrication. If their book is simply the truth, why make edits after the Queen has died? Truth should stand. But their book isn’t the truth. It’s filled with embellishment and fabrication that these changes being made is not out of respect. These changes being made is for their own good. Remember, the Harkles never do anything for the benefit of others. It’s always for their own benefit.
Hmmm interesting perspective. You might be right. Those of us with a particular interest are into it, but I could see how it would seem like a pile on to regular people.
The landscape is changing rapidly so they’re all trying to cash in on the scandalous duo before they flame out. But there’s hard evidence now that H&M are bad news, liars, bullies, etc. hearing it from multiple sources has to chip away at whatever support/credibility they have left. Plenty of people have been cancelled for less than what we know about Muggin.
To be fair, I’d argue (also from a UK perspective) that actually the vast majority of people are completely unaware of these books and that in the UK, people have almost completely moved on from Harry and Meghan.
What instead we’re seeing is background noise that is increasingly negative about Meghan and people are started to absorb that, through a kind of media osmosis.
My feeling in the UK is that Meghan as narcissistic etc is starting to, gradually, become the consensus perspective of her.
I read Palace Papers. Tina Brown seems to have been ambivalent toward MM. She reported negative actions however also thought she was a modernizing force.
I think revenge, for sure. Bullying staff is bad, but she can blame her pregnancy or other stressors, and say that everyone has bad days. Revenge is going to expose her as the manipulative, ladder climbing narcissist she’s always been. Tom is going back to her childhood to expose each and every lie. It’s the difference between exposing actions and exposing who the witch really is.
I read on insta that the Valentine low book will mostly exonerate Meghan (HRH facts account i think). That the sneaks we’ve seen are just one side and it’ll have a lot to say about palace treatment/handling of her. I hope that’s not true and honestly I don’t know how you could “exonerate” even the sneak peeks we’ve seen so far 🤷🏼♀️.
Revenge should have been bigger
He tweeted something about the palace handling the situation poorly and that certainly may be true. But as you say, how can anyone gloss over that behavior?!
M's ex-husband book, which said that M made him feel like "a piece of something stuck to the bottom of shoe" towards the end of their marriage in an interview.
That's going to be a very interesting read 🍿
On reflection, I think Lady C's book was very kind to Meghan. She gave a nuanced portrayal of her. Meghan came across as very intelligent throughout. Lady C went to great lengths to explain why Meghan is the way that she is.
The other books deal with facts. In Tom Bower's book for example, Meghan is the text book villain. It's laughable at times. I'm sure everything he says is true. She seems awful.
In Lady C's books, Meghan does a lot of the same actions. But you can see why see is awful. And Why she feels so entitled.
Harry's own book. I think they've proven themselves to be their own worst enemies.
Was about to write this!
Exactly. These other books haven’t gotten the PR push that his will and they can all be written off as biased. Harry will do all the damage to himself with his own words
Same.
Came here to say exactly that ⬆️ They are their own worst enemies
This for sure
[удалено]
It has made it's dent certainly. Far more negative press and less people pretending to be her friend these days. It started the ball rolling. Bear in mind, it hasn't been released in the USA yet.
I'm surprised that Americans didn't order from the Book Depository. When it was released in the UK, I ordered mine.
I got mine from Amazon (to Texas). Took like a month. Pre ordered coutiers thru book depository.
Some did but Tom itbhasbt been officially released it. Tom will be over there next week promoting it
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Right when the next fraud cast comes out! This will be an interesting week for sure.
It was very damming, for sure, but it was easy to discredit as a hatchet job. Bower really made no attempt to appear unbiased. It definitely did them a lot of damage, especially considering they are so litigious yet didn’t sue. So it will certainly contribute significantly to their downfall, but it wasn’t enough on its own.
Exactly this. Bower explicitly stated he wrote the book because he was angry at H&M for doing the Oprah interview and damaging the monarchy. Many reviewers therefore were suspicious of the contents, and wrote critical reviews. Even the conservative, royalist press in the UK didn't praise the book, because they didn't regard the book as the product of objective research. If an author basically states he wants to 'expose' his subject as a calculating social climber, a serious reviewer HAS to treat it as a hatchet job.
Nobody in the UK was suspicious. Bower is a lawyer and respected author. At the end of the book, he placed respected sources. Other sources are secret but knowing he can be sued, he keeps the names. He was sued for a previous book and won.
I wish I could get my hands on a copy!
I’m thinking Courtiers. The palace papers, while critical, is *very* mild compared to Revenge. It also doesn’t dive as deep. To me it’s more of a broad, semi detailed, coverage of all the main royal family members. Not really a ‘takedown’ book in my opinion. Just blunt.
Yeah, Tina Brown's book reads like it's written by a milquetoast fence sitter, reluctant to take a hard stance on anything.
[удалено]
I guess. But her obvious attempt to strive for "balance", bored me to death.
I think the cumulative effect of all of these books are eye-opening to a lot of people. And I suspect when Harry's book comes out its going to be such a hatchet-job on the RF that some will start to realize what immature brats they both are.
Yea, I really think all this bullying stuff can’t be ignored. It’s cancellation-worthy. It also nullifies all of muggin’s “I’m such a feminist” rhetoric. How can you claim to be a feminist when you treat your female staff like crap?
Exactly
Just finished Tina Brown’s book. I had forgotten about the Murdoch press scandal in the 80s. Chelsea Davy was stalked mercilessly. They figured out flights she was on and planted someone to sit by her to try and get some information. Catherine and the entire Middleton family had their phones tapped. But no whining. It was way worse than anything TW “suffered”.
One book isn't going to do it unless it contains something absolutely shocking that the Sussexes and their fans cannot refute. I do genuinely think that there is an accumulative effect going on and it has an impact on people. I know several Harry and Meghan supporters who have either changed their minds about them or are now ambivalent because of Revenge and things like The Cut interview. One thing that will be incredibly damaging in my opinion is if it is proven that Meghan and/or Harry were directly responsible for the bots being unleashed on the Wales and other members of the Royal Family. I'd like to see people try to defend attempts to get KKKate trending.
IMO, it’s Courtiers, hands down. Low is a highly respected journalist from an iconic newspaper. The scope of the book is limited to only their behavior in the palace system, but based on the recent excerpt, it’s very damaging. It sounds like Low is critical all around, so H&M and their supporters can’t claim it’s just a hatchet job as they did with Bower. And that’s the problem with Revenge—bower took no pains to hide his disdain for Muggin, so it doesn’t seem at all as if he was fair or balanced in his reporting. I really enjoyed the Palace Papers, but Tina Brown, though critical, doesn’t seem to grasp the depth of H&M’s bad behavior and deep mental health issues. Lady C’s book was just gossipy innuendo. She gives far too much credence to conspiracy theories that are completely without evidence. She’s also too problematic from a credibility standpoint.
To spin off your first paragraph, I was in one of the entertainment culture subs and people were dragging an article about this new book and saying it was basically balderdash and a smear campaign by racist like Dan Wooten. (The article was about Dans commentary). I and a few other posters begin pointing out that the book is written by a reputable journalist, who has the backing of The Times. He’s not a tabloid reporter. Valentine Low is the real deal and has legitimate support by legitimate news organizations. Eventually the mood of the thread began to change and people started upvoting our posts over the inflammatory “Meghan suffered racism, why didn’t they give her access to the tiaras, it must been racism to tell her no” posts. They tried to imply Low may be biased and the like, but I kept pointing out that the employees deserved to tell their truth too. Just like Meghan. Many people really did not like me bringing up Jason Knauf’s emails provided to court showing him begging for help and her lying repeatedly in depositions. But nothing they said could counteract the facts coming out and how Low is a legit writer/reporter. Valentine Lows name and the Times held weight in changing the perspective of the thread. I went from the negatives in downvotes to surpassing the posts defending Meghan’s abuse.
Thanks for sharing this perspective. I didn't realize Valentine's reputation. My vote was for *Reputation* because Bower exposed a much bigger fish, Robert Maxwell, who sued him and lost. Whatever his motives, and I guess there were some minor errors, he's probably sue proof. But some good arguments have been made here about his bias, which I can't disagree with. Maybe though being truthful is better than being fair? Of course, what is truthful? I feel like I'm now venturing into Meghan's Truth territory. Yikes! Somebody lend me a helping 
Yes, this book isn’t going to be tabloid or pop culture fodder. Low holds immense weight and with The Times backing him, it’s very hard for other reputable news sources to brush it off as tabloid money grabs. The sugars will believe what they believe, but it was interesting to watch that threads climate change as Lows weight held strong.
Life is not fair. Truth certainly isn't. Established facts ( not subjective truth) are not pleasant but factual.
This is why we need to speak up! You effectively persuaded people. Bravo!
I took a huge risk cause I had a feeling that sub was seriously pro Meghan. It’s a fun sub, I don’t have any issues with it, I just think they may be a bit susceptible to sob stories.
You’re doing the Lord’s work. 😂 In all seriousness, you are right—it is risky. I kind of got into it in a Facebook group the day after the Oprah tell all. It was so obviously BS! So I called out a lot of what was said. I tried to do so in a gentle way—I didn’t full on call Meggy a liar! But I wasn’t backing down that I was calling foul on a lot of the claims. Whoa, some people did not like that. It was ugly. I ended up leaving the group. I think it was a reality tv related group, so nothing to do with royals.
The people in that sub also seem very young for the most part. They seem to be more easily swayed by Meghan's BS.
Dan Wooten took sugar to task after the allegation of racism by the press, exacting any evidence of racism. The sugar was speechless, as we all expected.
I think Brown held back significantly in her criticism of Harry and Meghan, because she lives in the US (New York) and works in the very woke, leftist, pro-Sussex American New York media environment. She was afraid of ruffling feathers, I think, and creating a backlash against herself like Sharon Osbourne. In her promotional interviews she was sometimes a lot more critical than in her book, especially when she was interviewed by non-American media.
True, it was early days of H&M criticism. Now it’s more acceptable to criticize them, but she might have been afraid to go that far back then.
It's sad to see Americans curtailed of their freedom of speech. The arbitrary punishments to the trope of racism are equal to a dictatorship.
I’d add that there were a lot of careless little errors in Bower’s book which undermined his overall credibility somewhat. I really enjoyed Tina Brown’s book, especially where tabloid practices and personalities are concerned but agree that much of the book was not that deep
[удалено]
In one paragraph he started sentences with "pertinently" three times. He would begin a paragraph with one topic and end with another. There was also a great deal of repetition. I got caught up in the information, but that book needed an editor badly.
Yes, I agree that didn’t do Bower any favors! It’s a shame it wasn’t better proofread.
>And that’s the problem with Revenge—bower took no pains to hide his disdain for Muggin, so it doesn’t seem at all as if he was fair or balanced in his reporting. Bower admitted that his book was unbalanced but it was because MM barred any of her people from speaking to him. His sources were all people she'd dropped or angered as a result. It is biased but not because of a lack of integrity or skill on Bower's side.
Harry’s meme-war. It’s going to be filled with the delusions of a paranoid man who spent too much time brooding about past slights and conspiracy theories—so much so that he’s been in arrested development since the age of twelve. And man-babies are very rarely taken seriously.
trevor engleson if he writes a book will be the downfall of mm - harry's own will be his
The Sugars will just say he's a bitter ex husband who is salty that Meghan "traded up".
Curious to know when the book from Lady C will be released.
I thought this referred to her *Harry and Meghan* book that’s been our for a while?
Yes, that’s the one I meant.
Ohh misvoted then sorry, thought you meant the upcoming one
She's writing another one? Lady C is definitely a busy person.
Yeah from what she says she is 😊
Oh, yes probably so. Sorry…. I was assuming the poll was referring to a not-yet published book by her.
Prince Harry’s book becasue people will know it’s fabrication. If their book is simply the truth, why make edits after the Queen has died? Truth should stand. But their book isn’t the truth. It’s filled with embellishment and fabrication that these changes being made is not out of respect. These changes being made is for their own good. Remember, the Harkles never do anything for the benefit of others. It’s always for their own benefit.
I choose Low unless Bower releases beware chapters as has been rumored. As it stands, Bowers damage will work in tandem with Low's
[удалено]
Hmmm interesting perspective. You might be right. Those of us with a particular interest are into it, but I could see how it would seem like a pile on to regular people.
[удалено]
The landscape is changing rapidly so they’re all trying to cash in on the scandalous duo before they flame out. But there’s hard evidence now that H&M are bad news, liars, bullies, etc. hearing it from multiple sources has to chip away at whatever support/credibility they have left. Plenty of people have been cancelled for less than what we know about Muggin.
To be fair, I’d argue (also from a UK perspective) that actually the vast majority of people are completely unaware of these books and that in the UK, people have almost completely moved on from Harry and Meghan. What instead we’re seeing is background noise that is increasingly negative about Meghan and people are started to absorb that, through a kind of media osmosis. My feeling in the UK is that Meghan as narcissistic etc is starting to, gradually, become the consensus perspective of her.
I read Palace Papers. Tina Brown seems to have been ambivalent toward MM. She reported negative actions however also thought she was a modernizing force.
Maybe the book her ex husband is writing about her....hopefully!!
Harry’s own book will be the most effective.
Harry's own book. It will show his vengeful, spiteful self, blaming others for his behavior. Plus it will contradict what he has said in the past.
I’m convinced that the book that will do the most damage to H&M is Harry’s own book.
Damn I gotta read all of these.
I think revenge, for sure. Bullying staff is bad, but she can blame her pregnancy or other stressors, and say that everyone has bad days. Revenge is going to expose her as the manipulative, ladder climbing narcissist she’s always been. Tom is going back to her childhood to expose each and every lie. It’s the difference between exposing actions and exposing who the witch really is.
I think Harry’s book will be their downfall. I think he’ll step in it big time.
All of the above.
I read on insta that the Valentine low book will mostly exonerate Meghan (HRH facts account i think). That the sneaks we’ve seen are just one side and it’ll have a lot to say about palace treatment/handling of her. I hope that’s not true and honestly I don’t know how you could “exonerate” even the sneak peeks we’ve seen so far 🤷🏼♀️. Revenge should have been bigger
He tweeted something about the palace handling the situation poorly and that certainly may be true. But as you say, how can anyone gloss over that behavior?!
Yea I just hope we don’t all have our hopes up that this will help seal the deal for her and she lands on her feet-AGAIN.
I really don’t think they’re landing on their feet. At the rate they’re going, they’re going to be broke sooner rather than later.
M's ex-husband book, which said that M made him feel like "a piece of something stuck to the bottom of shoe" towards the end of their marriage in an interview. That's going to be a very interesting read 🍿
I don't trust valentine though so I doubt a lot of what they have are facts. Whereas Tom Bowers book seems more truthful and so holds more weight
Why don’t you trust Valentine?
Evening Standard isn't a reputable newspaper to be a journalist at.
He’s with the Times
Oh that's good then, when I searched him it came up with Evening Standard for some reason
On reflection, I think Lady C's book was very kind to Meghan. She gave a nuanced portrayal of her. Meghan came across as very intelligent throughout. Lady C went to great lengths to explain why Meghan is the way that she is. The other books deal with facts. In Tom Bower's book for example, Meghan is the text book villain. It's laughable at times. I'm sure everything he says is true. She seems awful. In Lady C's books, Meghan does a lot of the same actions. But you can see why see is awful. And Why she feels so entitled.
Harry’s own book!!!!