"Revenge" by Tom Bower (2022)

[Mirabel]

It's not like Meghan and Harry had to make choices between celebrity guests and the extended royal family.
They could easily have invited them all, but for some inexplicable reason they chose not to.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

It was odd, especially when you compare to Eugenie's and later Ella Windsor wedding. Whatever the reason - we really will never know. However I do know that Louise and James Windsor were also not included in the original list. Many people hoped that they might be in the Wedding party, but they were not even invited.
The reason was children were not invited as guest to the wedding - there was an age limit and they were under it. I think that the Queen personally requested that they be included.

HMQ had to personally request the presence of Lady Louise and Viscount Severn?? Wow.

On the other hand, I was very happy to see that Harry refused to snub Sarah Ferguson, unlike William.

Sarah has/had only ever shown great kindness to Diana's boys, so banning her from his wedding always struck me as petty and mean spirited of William.

 

[FigTree]

Well, if we compare with Eugenie's wedding, it's rather odd that neither Savannah, Isla, nor Mia was included in the wedding party. For one, if it's about age, they're older than Charlotte so either of them would be better choice. If, say, Savannah were included, maybe George and Charlotte wouldn't seem to be as isolated (they clung to their parents before and after the ceremony, unlike during Eugenie's).

Well that was personal choice. 5 children from Harry's side and five from Meghan's. He choose 3 Godchildren.

The Cambridge children walked out with their parents to be sure. I'm not sure why as it was obvious it was their Nanny looking after them all.

Eugenie choose all of them and that was super to see. But that seemed much more of a family wedding. Most of them didn't look too thrilled about Harry's. Zara was heavily pregnant, Kate had a small baby, Beatrice looked sneery at the American preacher, as did Camilla. William and Charles looked happy enough.

Eugenie is extremely close to all the family. Harry was once close.to Peter and Zara...but you know maybe not anymore.

HMQ had to personally request the presence of Lady Louise and Viscount Severn?? Wow.

On the other hand, I was very happy to see that Harry refused to snub Sarah Ferguson, unlike William.

Sarah has/had only ever shown great kindness to Diana's boys, so banning her from his wedding always struck me as petty and mean spirited of William.

I didn't know that. Lots of people decide to not have children at weddings though.

William may not necessarily be close to Sarah. He probably didn't snub her just didn't have any relationship with her. He is close to Peter and Zara and never seemed that close to the York girls. That may be changing now with the realigned family dynamics.

 

[Alison H]

If people don't have children at weddings, it's usually either to keep the numbers down because they're on a tight budget, or because they're worried that young children will yell and scream and their parents won't have the sense to take them outside. Louise and James were well past the yelling and screaming stage, and money was hardly an issue. I'm amazed that the Queen had to intervene to get Harry to invite his own first cousins.

What saddened me was seeing Doria Ragland sitting all on her own. She was very dignified, but how awful to be sat on your own in Westminster Abbey, with the eyes of the world on you, when you're bound to ne nervous. Whomever else they did or didn't invite, couldn't they have asked someone - cousin, neighbour, friend, colleague? - to accompany her.

Sorry - I mean St George's Chapel!!

 

[FigTree]

If people don't have children at weddings, it's usually either to keep the numbers down because they're on a tight budget, or because they're worried that young children will yell and scream and their parents won't have the sense to take them outside. Louise and James were well past the yelling and screaming stage, and money was hardly an issue. I'm amazed that the Queen had to intervene to get Harry to invite his own first cousins.

What saddened me was seeing Doria Ragland sitting all on her own. She was very dignified, but how awful to be sat on your own in Westminster Abbey, with the eyes of the world on you, when you're bound to ne nervous. Whomever else they did or didn't invite, couldn't they have asked someone - cousin, neighbour, friend, colleague? - to accompany her.

It would have been lovely for her to have brought someone. Maybe she didn't want to.

 

[Mbruno]

What saddened me was seeing Doria Ragland sitting all on her own. She was very dignified, but how awful to be sat on your own in Westminster Abbey, with the eyes of the world on you, when you're bound to ne nervous. Whomever else they did or didn't invite, couldn't they have asked someone - cousin, neighbour, friend, colleague? - to accompany her.

Luckily for Doria, St George's Chapel is quite smaller than Westminster Abbey, so hopefully it was less uncomfortable for her.

 

[Alison H]

Sorry, I have no idea why I typed Westminster Abbey - brain fail! But it's still quite a big place, and quite intimidating for someone not used to royal events; and she was all on her own, whereas the pews for Harry's family were full. Even in a small local church, that would be quite a difficult situation to be in.

 

[TLLK]

I didn't know that. Lots of people decide to not have children at weddings though.

William may not necessarily be close to Sarah. He probably didn't snub her just didn't have any relationship with her. He is close to Peter and Zara and never seemed that close to the York girls. That may be changing now with the realigned family dynamics.

I believe that Sarah's "cash for access to Andrew" scandal from 2010 was still fresh in the minds of the senior royals, so that might also have explained her absence on the guest list.

 

[tommy100]

It is clear H&M excluded a number of "extended family" who usually attend such family events and who it seems are quite close to The Queen. This in itself might not have been odd if they truly had gone for a "small family wedding" but the fact they invited celebrities they had never met but not Harry's family - including HRH's working officially for the Queen - made it seem quite a stark contrast.

Yes, Sarah was rather a troublesome character back when W&C married - only 8 months before the wedding day she had been declared bankrupt, caught selling access to Andrew and the tabloids were full of stories about her not paying those she owed etc. I also got the impression from media coverage at the time that William wasn't a particular fan of hers. Her not being invited isn't comparable to Harry's extended family IMO (but others may feel different)

 

[Hallo girl]

Also Eugenie was due to be married in the same church just a few months later, maybe this was a dry run for Sarah.

 

[Curryong]

IIRC the book specifically stated that Serena Williams herself claimed she wasn't a friend but indeed just an acquaintance of Meghan.

That statement by Serena was made in 2017. They became much friendlier later. The comment wasn’t made to Tom Bower. He just repeated it in his book.

 

[FigTree]

That statement by Serena was made in 2017. They became much friendlier later. The comment wasn’t made to Tom Bower. He just repeated it in his book.

So. I fail to see the relevance. Finding Freedom I distinctly remember said they met and became firm friends from day one. Well they didn’t. And to be fair. Why Serena Williams. She has never exactly covered herself in gold as regards her attitude.

If I was going for a tennis star numerous others come to mind as examples of dignity, equality, feminism and attitude.

 

[Sun Lion]

So. I fail to see the relevance. Finding Freedom I distinctly remember said they met and became firm friends from day one. Well they didn’t. And to be fair. Why Serena Williams. She has never exactly covered herself in gold as regards her attitude.

If I was going for a tennis star numerous others come to mind as examples of dignity, equality, feminism and attitude.

Perhaps Mr Scobie’s new book, that has just been announced, will address that FigTree.

Oops, I wasn’t going to post in this thread again, but anyway, while I ‘m here …

“60 Minutes” has Tom Bower, and Valentine Low of the Times, on tonight here in Oz.

And Mr Bower is being reported in some mainstream media, about some podcast comments he made, regarding the seating at St Paul’s for the Jubilee … details he learnt too late to put in “Revenge”.

(The Sussexes arrived late at Wellington Barracks for the group bus, wanted the others to move along so they could sit on the aisle. We’re told no, they had to take the seats assigned to them, asked who said so, we’re told it was his grandmother. Mr Bower says a senior military man relayed the incident to him)

Well, the book is now pretty much in the public eye, if “60 Minutes” is covering it … and not just the breakfast shows.

 

[kalnel]

It's not available for sale in the United States yet.

I downloaded it as a Kindle book from Amazon today in the United States. It is also available in hardback and paperback.

I'm about a third of the way through, and the main thing I've noticed is how many editorial mistakes it has. For instance, it talks about Thomas Markle being from "New England," even though it says he is from Pennsylvania, which is not in New England.

In other places, it talks about Suits being on "American Network." It was on USA Network.

I don't feel like I've read anything new so far, but we'll see...

 

[Moonmaiden23]

TLLK, I had forgotten about how close that cash-for-access scandal was to William's wedding. Yes that could definitely explain why Sarah was persona non grata.

 

[FigTree]

Perhaps Mr Scobie’s new book, that has just been announced, will address that FigTree.

Oops, I wasn’t going to post in this thread again, but anyway, while I ‘m here …

“60 Minutes” has Tom Bower, and Valentine Low of the Times, on tonight here in Oz.

And Mr Bower is being reported in some mainstream media, about some podcast comments he made, regarding the seating at St Paul’s for the Jubilee … details he learnt too late to put in “Revenge”.

(The Sussexes arrived late at Wellington Barracks for the group bus, wanted the others to move along so they could sit on the aisle. We’re told no, they had to take the seats assigned to them, asked who said so, we’re told it was his grandmother. Mr Bower says a senior military man relayed the incident to him)

Well, the book is now pretty much in the public eye, if “60 Minutes” is covering it … and not just the breakfast shows.

I’m not sure I believe that…all these things run to military precision. They couldn’t just turn up in a car. There was obviously timed arrivals. I do wonder if there was some issue about them arriving before Bea and Eug. It was a little odd that they were seated inside them yet arrived later. So I believe the move up thing because in the normal world that is just what you would do. But I do think that they were placed strategically away from the aisle to avoid the picture when Charles and William passed. So perhaps they were always supposed to arrive then but seating shocked them. The seating for all other events would have been similar and they would have been well away from Charles and William which is perhaps why they didn’t go. Didn’t want the optics of them being way out.

I downloaded it as a Kindle book from Amazon today in the United States. It is also available in hardback and paperback.

I'm about a third of the way through, and the main thing I've noticed is how many editorial mistakes it has. For instance, it talks about Thomas Markle being from "New England," even though it says he is from Pennsylvania, which is not in New England.

In other places, it talks about Suits being on "American Network." It was on USA Network.

I don't feel like I've read anything new so far, but we'll see...

There are quite a few…Brian May played on the roof on 2012…he didn’t it was 2002. It obviously didn’t spend enough time with editors. All these things are usually picked up on subsequent prints.

There isn’t much new…it’s the way it’s presented.

 

[muriel]

Sarah has/had only ever shown great kindness to Diana's boys, so banning her from his wedding always struck me as petty and mean spirited of William.

I do not believe there is any information in the public domain to provide much detail on the specifics of Sarah's relationship with either William or Harry.

As others have noted, Sarah has been a source of embarrassment to the BRF on many occasions, and so I would not blame William from excluding her from his wedding. Especially as it was so soon after the Cash for Access to Andrew debacle. Truth be told, I do not know many families that invite the ex-wife of an uncle to a wedding who had separated c20 years ago.

 

[TLLK]

TLLK, I had forgotten about how close that cash-for-access scandal was to William's wedding. Yes that could definitely explain why Sarah was persona non grata.

Moonmaiden- So much has happened in the past 12 years, so I am amazed that I actually remembered that story.

These days I am thrilled if remember where I put down my reading glasses!

 

[Curryong]

If William is regarded as not close to Sarah York and therefore didn’t invite her to his nuptials, how long ago before his wedding had Harry actually met and spent some time (if any) with the second cousins that weren’t invited? That is, ‘the paternal second cousins once removed (i.e. the children of the Duke of Gloucester, the Duke of Kent, Prince Michael, and Princess Alexandra) and his paternal third cousins (the grandchildren of the Kents of the Gloucesters)?’

 

[muriel]

If William is regarded as not close to Sarah York and therefore didn’t invite her to his nuptials, how long ago before his wedding had Harry actually met and spent some time (if any) with the second cousins that weren’t invited? That is, ‘the paternal second cousins once removed (i.e. the children of the Duke of Gloucester, the Duke of Kent, Prince Michael, and Princess Alexandra) and his paternal third cousins (the grandchildren of the Kents of the Gloucesters)?’

I presume Harry and William probably met the extended family every year to HM's Christmas lunch at BP.

 

[FigTree]

I presume Harry and William probably met the extended family every year to HM's Christmas lunch at BP.

And Sarah was divorced out of the family. They don’t now invite divorced members to public events. They did with Diana and Sarah for a while. And Sarah was very much around and still is. But Harry’s was the only wedding she was invited too…she doesn’t appear in public with the family and Williams wedding was a state occasion. Harry’s a private one. Zara and Peter didn’t invite her either.

Not to mention The Kent’s particularly Gabriella and brother grew up beside them in Kensington and the Gloucesters despite all being a bit older.

 

[Curryong]

Harry was 33 at the time of his marriage. He stopped living at Kensington Palace in mid 1997 after his mother’s death, just before the age of 13.

And we really don’t know whether he or his brother played a lot with the Kent or Gloucester offspring, all of whom were several years older than Harry. The Gloucester children were born in 1974, 1977 and 1980 for example. Harry was born in 1984.

My point is, why is it considered obligatory to invite second cousins who you might have seen once a year for the last twenty or so years to your wedding?

 

[FigTree]

Harry was 33 at the time of his marriage. He stopped living at Kensington Palace in mid 1997 after his mother’s death, just before the age of 13.

And we really don’t know whether he or his brother played a lot with the Kent or Gloucester offspring, all of whom were several years older than Harry. The Gloucester children were born in 1974, 1977 and 1980 for example. Harry was born in 1984.

My point is, why is it considered obligatory to invite second cousins who you might have seen once a year for the last twenty or so years to your wedding?

It isn’t…but it seems to be what has happened previously. He can invite who he wants…and did, he invited Sarah. But with over 600 guests…some of whom weren’t known and sat in the nave…and others not invited and close friends excluded from the reception…while others again unknown were there. Well yeah it does look odd.

 

[Curryong]

Yes, I agree. Brides and grooms should be able to invite whoever they like to their own nuptials. Really, it’s their business and no-one else’s.

Criticism of inaccuracies in Bower’s book ‘Revenge’.

Criticism of inaccuracies in Bower?s book by those cited as having been interviewed and weren?t.

Tom Bower's 'Revenge' Book About Meghan Markle Faces Criticism

Then on July 22, the royal commentator Kristen Meinzer wrote on Twitter that she was wrongly cited in the book as a friend to the duchess and that she was never interviewed by Bower.

Meinzer previously told Insider that Bower recycled her quotes used in the book from an interview with a news outlet without giving credit to the publication.

"'No one,' agreed Kristen Meinzer, a friend and a writer, 'could have been prepared for the level of racism and misogyny and vitriol that she's faced,'" Bower wrote.

Some actors and staff discovered that Meghan's attitude occasionally shifted. Sometimes she arrived late and her empathy morphed into near-arrogance," Bower writes, adding that coworkers thought Markle's tone had become sharper and more aggressive during the sixth season of the show.

But Markle's "Suits" coworkers came to her defense in March 2021 after the palace announced it would investigate claims made in a Times of London report that the duchess bullied two senior staff members during her time with the royal family. Representatives for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex denied these allegations and, in June 2022, the palace said the results of its investigation would not be published to protect those involved.

At the time, Derek Ursacki, an assistant director on the show, wrote on Instagram: "She was always a pleasure to work with and was always kind with a huge heart, easy going, humble even after the fame of the show and her popularity skyrocketed, so full of life, so giving, supportive and funny."

 

[FigTree]

Criticism of inaccuracies in Bower’s book ‘Revenge’.

Criticism of inaccuracies in Bower?s book by those cited as having been interviewed and weren?t.

Tom Bower's 'Revenge' Book About Meghan Markle Faces Criticism

Then on July 22, the royal commentator Kristen Meinzer wrote on Twitter that she was wrongly cited in the book as a friend to the duchess and that she was never interviewed by Bower.

Meinzer previously told Insider that Bower recycled her quotes used in the book from an interview with a news outlet without giving credit to the publication.

"'No one,' agreed Kristen Meinzer, a friend and a writer, 'could have been prepared for the level of racism and misogyny and vitriol that she's faced,'" Bower wrote.

Some actors and staff discovered that Meghan's attitude occasionally shifted. Sometimes she arrived late and her empathy morphed into near-arrogance," Bower writes, adding that coworkers thought Markle's tone had become sharper and more aggressive during the sixth season of the show.

But Markle's "Suits" coworkers came to her defense in March 2021 after the palace announced it would investigate claims made in a Times of London report that the duchess bullied two senior staff members during her time with the royal family. Representatives for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex denied these allegations and, in June 2022, the palace said the results of its investigation would not be published to protect those involved.

At the time, Derek Ursacki, an assistant director on the show, wrote on Instagram: "She was always a pleasure to work with and was always kind with a huge heart, easy going, humble even after the fame of the show and her popularity skyrocketed, so full of life, so giving, supportive and funny."

If there are inaccuracies they can challenge them. This article says nothing. They refused to comment and he got pronouns wrong? I am sure there are many things which could challenged here…but either her Suits friends have been told to say nothing in public about her anymore or they rather wisely now are being dignified. That Patrick guy was rather embarrassingly twitting last year. Although I respect anyone who is standing up for a friend.

 

[MARG]

From the general tenor of the book one can only imagine the "sources" were overjoyed that they had "driven the witch out". However, every ugly report we have heard or read has been from "reliable sources" most of which seemingly wished to be left unnamed to ensure they can't be sued.

This toxic mess Bower et al are espousing is at direct odds with her 'Suits' castmates and the show's creators, directors and producers. Same for her previous jobs. So, how can they be so diametrically opposed? Well, judging the way "things" are handled, both good news and bad, by TPTB a the palace, (eg scandals) they take no prisoners and ensure the main line remains pristine and family are expected to fall on their swords.

I find handling family with the same callous ruthlessness as a cutthroat business squashing a competitor is toxically nauseating. Anyway, as has been made clear by both the Prince of Wales and Prince William, they were more than happy that Meghan seemingly had room for Harry when she got on her broom and left!

 

[FigTree]

From the general tenor of the book one can only imagine the "sources" were overjoyed that they had "driven the witch out". However, every ugly report we have heard or read has been from "reliable sources" most of which seemingly wished to be left unnamed to ensure they can't be sued.

This toxic mess Bower et al are espousing is at direct odds with her 'Suits' castmates and the show's creators, directors and producers. Same for her previous jobs. So, how can they be so diametrically opposed? Well, judging the way "things" are handled, both good news and bad, by TPTB a the palace, (eg scandals) they take no prisoners and ensure the main line remains pristine and family are expected to fall on their swords.

I find handling family with the same callous ruthlessness as a cutthroat business squashing a competitor is toxically nauseating. Anyway, as has been made clear by both the Prince of Wales and Prince William, they were more than happy that Meghan seemingly had room for Harry when she got on her broom and left!

They are a business though. If William went off to live in Antarctica they would do a mere blink and say: Have you met Beatrice? We have also seen that as a family they are incredibly close.

The family have nothing to with this book and why would they comment. If Meghan and Harry want to then fine but the problem with all this is that when you raise objections to things it then shows up what is actually true whereas when you say nothing no one knows and it’s just speculation. We have to presume there is truth in the bullying because they didn’t sue.

Meghan and Harry will continue to be mentioned in books long after they are no longer with us…about George even and how this episode may later shape his outlook. It really is wise to say nothing. It’s a book, some is going to be on the nose, others an approximation and some things seriously wide of the mark.

 

[Hallo girl]

Perhaps Mr Scobie’s new book, that has just been announced, will address that FigTree.

Oops, I wasn’t going to post in this thread again, but anyway, while I ‘m here …

“60 Minutes” has Tom Bower, and Valentine Low of the Times, on tonight here in Oz.

And Mr Bower is being reported in some mainstream media, about some podcast comments he made, regarding the seating at St Paul’s for the Jubilee … details he learnt too late to put in “Revenge”.

(The Sussexes arrived late at Wellington Barracks for the group bus, wanted the others to move along so they could sit on the aisle. We’re told no, they had to take the seats assigned to them, asked who said so, we’re told it was his grandmother. Mr Bower says a senior military man relayed the incident to him)

Well, the book is now pretty much in the public eye, if “60 Minutes” is covering it … and not just the breakfast shows.

I have heard the story before about late arrival etc, I have no idea if it is correct but something does appear to have happened that morning. When have you ever seen royals arriving at an event and they are not seated in order of arrival.
I cannot recall anybody having to shift along or get up to let somebody else in.

 

[Mbruno]

Criticism of inaccuracies in Bower’s book ‘Revenge’.

Some actors and staff discovered that Meghan's attitude occasionally shifted. Sometimes she arrived late and her empathy morphed into near-arrogance," Bower writes, adding that coworkers thought Markle's tone had become sharper and more aggressive during the sixth season of the show.

But Markle's "Suits" coworkers came to her defense in March 2021 after the palace announced it would investigate claims made in a Times of London report that the duchess bullied two senior staff members during her time with the royal family. Representatives for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex denied these allegations and, in June 2022, the palace said the results of its investigation would not be published to protect those involved.

At the time, Derek Ursacki, an assistant director on the show, wrote on Instagram: "She was always a pleasure to work with and was always kind with a huge heart, easy going, humble even after the fame of the show and her popularity skyrocketed, so full of life, so giving, supportive and funny."

Perceptions of what constitutes bulllying or arrogant behavior may vary widely, especially across different cultures. In particular, what is normally considered aggressiveness or arrogance in the UK may sometimes be seen as socially normal or perfectly acceptable in the US. I suspect many of the problems that Meghan may have had with staff in the UK possibly had to do with cultural misunderstanding.

 

[Alison H]

From other reports which have come out, William sensed that, and tried to get Harry to do something about it, but Harry went berserk at any implied criticism of Meghan. Maybe if he'd listened, and explained to Meghan that what was OK in California was not OK here, the situation could have been resolved amicably.