TRespected biographer Tom Bower has given some extraordinary interviews about his new study on Meghan Markle and Prince Harry. His book with the quiet title Revenge, isn’t just, we learn, a sweeping negative review of the couple: Bower wants it to actively harm them. “This book could accelerate a downturn that I wouldn’t be sad about at all,” he told an enchanted Piers Morgan, “because they pose a real threat to the royal family.”
The public shouldn’t be reassured that the Sussexes left for California some time ago. Nor were they fooled by their very minor role in what is widely regarded as a triumph for the royal family. Also not keen on the pair’s alternate employment, now they’re non-working royals delivering boring, homiletic content to US customers. It’s not enough that Bower’s tireless allies in the British media are already backing every display of Sussex piety with a salvo of responses from royal experts and body language experts. Harry’s recent address to the UN, for example, was immediately brought down with blasts from Sarah Vine and Piers Morgan, who is still struggling to get over Meghan’s ghosting.
Bower still senses danger from the deceptively sleeping Meghan, “a very scheming, very smart woman”.
After watching her with Oprah, he concluded, “This woman is doing something pretty terrible to Britain and Harry has ridiculously fallen in love with her and has become her accomplice.” If only Harry had fallen in love with the former actress in a sensible way , such as Prince Charles in his now beloved Camilla Parker Bowles.
So if Bower’s book, no less than the accompanying interviews, seems steeped in savage malice, perhaps it comes from a good and loyal place. It’s about giving the Queen an “ultimate happiness” (which “Meghan and Harry seem determined to deny”) that details Bower, as well as Meghan’s ex-lover, her early pursuit of acting roles and her determination to forge a personal brand, forced, to add insults to his charges against her. For example, he volunteers for the former suits Star was interviewed by Larry King: “Meghan looked unusually unattractive with greasy hair, wrinkled clothes and pointed 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. See for yourself, but for this viewer, the contrast between Bower’s description and Markle’s actual (appealing) appearance is something his editors may have checked for reader confidence. So they must already hope that a response from a quoted critic, Sam Kashner, will be published in the Times last week will be the last to cast doubt on the author’s bias. “I found Ms. Markle,” Kashner wrote, “to be extraordinarily warm and kind, admiring her intelligence and remarkable courage, as I still do.” Bower replies, “That just shows the power of Meghan.”
If the reader sometimes feels that more poise would have strengthened his case, the veteran Bower may have felt more responsible for awakening a nation, but understanding the menace of a controlling woman who, tellingly — a point he previously didn’t was emphasized – is not great. Schemer, Meghan often wears heels, but Bower is not fooled. While he’s not the only tall man to show a modicum of pride in having evolved so successfully, it’s still unusual for that trait to morph into a regal threat detector. At Wimbledon with Kate: “The physical comparison was unflattering for Meghan. Alone, Meghan’s charisma won universal applause, but next to the taller, authoritarian queen-to-be, the Duchess appeared weakened.’ Perhaps this could be erased in any volume likely to be picked up by the Queen (5’3”) at this delicate point in her reign?
But logic rules nowhere in this protracted bitchfest, which Bower won’t gleefully cite against the Sussexes’ grudges while overlooking similar mistakes among his favourites. Harry’s Oprah suit is ‘ill-fitting’. Thomas Markle looks… like Thomas Markle (the more-than-fashionable flaws of Princess Michael’s “Blackamoor” brooch are also ignored). The Sussexes’ favorite journalist, Omid Scobie, has a face, Bower adds as another irrelevant ad hominem that “changed after working in Japan”. Presumably surgery is referred to here, as opposed to climate. “Some would say,” adds Bower, “as royal editor for Harper’s Bazaarthe Anglo-Iranian is a propagandist.”
Whether intended as an elegant spreader of malice or a practical gossip monger, some say/would say the idioms throughout the book seem heroic, as in a passage about a charity executive: “Some would even say he’s obsessed with her.”
Incidentally, some would say that in a book that teases Harry for using the wrong word (“recipe” for formula), it’s unfortunate that Omid Scobie appears on a page as “Omar Scobie”.
Turning to the “explosive” new content promised by Bowers’ publishers, the most valuable revelations appear to be: Meghan was mean at a fashion shoot; the Queen was glad Meghan didn’t attend the funeral; the Fashion the staff didn’t like her either; Meghan angered some of her bosses with complaints about her hateful language as she flouted British niceties like an outsider.
Definitely new is Bower’s diagnosis of Meghan’s “terrible envy” with no apparent evidence. With his lawyer’s hat on, he proposes a confirmed verdict against a post The publication of her private letter by the newspaper was because “British judges as a class were not well disposed to it post newspaper group”.
Getting back to the facts, the author concludes that the couple’s messy departure to the United States brought the Queen, Charles and William together. “They have forged a united front against the Sussexes.”
Some would say – to borrow from Bower again – that this observable royal resilience makes his claims about vengeful, Montecito-based “destruction agents” even more nonsense. As for his book’s claim that the tearful — albeit menacing — couple never had anything to complain about: if they didn’t then, they do now.