Home Book publication Meghan a threat to the royal family? It’s a way to sell a junk gossip book | Catherine Bennett

Meghan a threat to the royal family? It’s a way to sell a junk gossip book | Catherine Bennett

0

JHer respected biographer, Tom Bower, has given extraordinary interviews about his new study of Meghan Markle and Prince Harry. His book, calmly titled Revenge, is not simply, we learn, an overall negative assessment of the couple: Bower would like him to actively harm them. “This book could accelerate a downward trend that I wouldn’t be at all sad about,” he told a delighted Piers Morgan, “because they pose a real threat to the Royal Family.”

The public should not, you can imagine, be reassured by the departure of the Sussexes, some time ago, for California. Nor deceived by their very minor role in a jubilee widely seen as a triumph for the royal family. Neither supported by the couple’s surrogate occupation, they are now out-of-work royals, delivering bland, homiletic content to American customers. It’s not enough that every demonstration of Sussex morality is already secured by Bower’s tireless allies in the British media, with a volley of responses from royal experts and body language professionals. Harry’s recent UN address was, for example, immediately canceled with outbursts from Sarah Vine and, still struggling to get over Meghan’s ghost, Piers Morgan.

Bower still senses the danger of the falsely sleeping Meghan, “a very intriguing and very intelligent woman”.

After watching it with Oprah, he concluded: “This woman is doing something pretty terrible to Britain and Harry has fallen in love with her, you know, in a ridiculous way, and has become her accomplice. .” If only Harry had fallen in love with the former actress in a sensible way, like, say, Prince Charles did with his now revered Camilla Parker Bowles.

So if Bower’s book, no less than the interviews linked to it, seems laced with savage malice, perhaps it comes from a good and loyal place. It is to give the Queen “final bliss” (which “Meghan and Harry seem determined to deny”) that Bower, in addition to detailing Meghan’s ex-lovers, her early scramble for acting roles and the determined forge of a personal brand, is forced to complete his case against her with insults. He volunteers, for example, so that when the former Combinations was interviewed by Larry King, “Meghan looked uncharacteristically unattractive with greasy hair, rumpled clothes and sharp eyes”. Finding that even harder to accept than Bower’s belief that relying on notorious Markle haters is a compelling approach, I took a look. Judge for yourself, but for this viewer, the contrast between Bower’s description and Markle’s actual (attractive) appearance is something her editors might, for the reader’s confidence, have verified. As it stands, they must already be hoping that a response from quoted detractor Sam Kashner, published in the Time last week, will be the last to cast doubt on the bias of the author. “I found Ms. Markle,” Kashner wrote, “to be exceptionally warm and gracious and admired her remarkable intelligence and courage, as I always do.” Bower retorts: “It just shows the power of Meghan.”

While the reader sometimes feels more poise might have made his case stronger, perhaps the experienced Bower felt a greater responsibility to wake up a nation that has yet to understand the threat of a controlling woman. which is telling – a point not made before – not great. Intriguingly, Meghan often wears high heels, but Bower is not fooled. While he’s not the only tall man to betray a certain pride in having grown up so successfully, it’s still unusual to see that quality turn into a regal threat detector. At Wimbledon with Kate: “The physical comparison was unflattering for Meghan. On her own, Meghan’s radiance won universal applause, but next to the taller and more authoritative future queen, the Duchess seemed diminished. Perhaps this could be deleted in any volume likely to be taken up by the Queen (5’3″), at this delicate time in her reign?

But no logic, in this long slut party, governs what Bower won’t happily cite against the Sussexes, while overlooking similar failings among his favourites. Harry’s Oprah costume is “ill-fitting”. Thomas Markle looks like… Thomas Markle (the more than sartorial flaws of Princess Michael’s “blackamoor” brooch are also ignored). The Sussexes’ favorite reporter Omid Scobie has a face, Bower adds by way of another irrelevant ad hominem, which “changed after working in Japan”. Presumably, surgery is referenced here, as opposed to climate. “Some would say,” adds Bower, “that as royal editor of Harper’s Bazaarthe Anglo-Iranian is a propagandist.

Whether designed as a sleek malevolent diffuser or a practical gossip vehicle, some have said/would say the locutions occur heroically throughout the book, such as in a passage about a charity leader: “Some would even say that he was in love with her.”

Some would say, by the way, that it’s unfortunate in a book that taunts Harry for using the wrong word (“recipe” for formula) that Omid Scobie appears on a page as “Omar Scobie”.

Coming to the “explosive” new content promised by Bower’s editors, the most prized revelations seem to be: Meghan was mean in a fashion shoot; the Queen was happy Meghan did not attend the funeral; the vogue the staff didn’t like it either; Meghan, with an outsider’s disdain for British niceties, has vexed some of her superiors by complaining about their hateful language.

Bower’s diagnosis, without any obvious evidence, of Meghan’s “terrible envy” is definitely novel. With his lawyer’s cap, he suggests that a confirmed judgment against a Mail the newspaper’s publication of his private letter occurred because, “as a class, British judges were antipathetic to the Mail press group.

Coming back to the facts, the author concludes that the couple’s disorderly departure for the United States brought the Queen, Charles and William closer together. “They were forging a united front against the Sussexes.”

Some would say – to borrow Bower again – that this observable royal resilience makes her claims about vengeful Montecito-based “agents of destruction” even more insane. As for her book’s assertion that the whiny – albeit menacing – couple never had anything to complain about: if they didn’t then, they do now.

Catherine Bennett is an Observer columnist