The Palace Papers

[Anonymous]

My problem with this whole thing is they’re all just sort of sad, flawed people. No one is interestingly evil, no one is interestingly good, no one has any breakthrough power. They’re just a bunch of average to crummy people flailing around. Except for Kate, who is unfailingly thin with good hair. But even Kate has those bad eyeliner tattoos.

[Anonymous]

I read the post article. It sounds interesting, but I"ll probably wait to get it from the library. I don't really consider myself pro or anti Harry or Meghan. She seemed genuinely naive about what being part of the royal family would be like, but I don't blame them for leaving GB. The british tabloid press was overtly racist in discussing her, and I wouldn't subject my kids to that either.

I don't really get their relationship with the queen. Harry says they are so close that he is her confidant, and they go out of their way to say she is not the problem. She is the head of the family? How can she not be part of the problem?

[Anonymous]

...Yet: “The Palace Papers” is still the most essential book of the Markle interregnum, although it’s admittedly not a distinguished group. Brown’s powers of royal observation remain exquisite. Her recounting of the first Sussex/Cambridge couples’ event is one of the book’s greatest joys, and an explanation in miniature of everything that subsequently went wrong.
Sounds like a good read to me

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just read Brothers and Wives. It was surprising (to me) that Diana talked to William (age 13-14?) about her dating life. Yikes. Also, William and Harry were big drinkers/parties at a young age. I blame Charles’ lack of interest for that. Maybe this book will hold you over until The Palace Papers arrives.
As an aside, I am currently reading a novel called The Paper Palace. Totally different kind of book.

I remember it coming out before she died that William was Diana's confidant. I don't think Charles lacked interest in the boys, though. Diana said he was a good and attentive father, so it must be true. She wouldn't waste an opportunity to criticize him. The boys were probably big partiers partly because they were emotionally messed up a bit from their family life but also because they were entitled elites who had the luxury of not having to worry about getting good grades or establishing a career.

[Anonymous]

The Windsors are trash. The British should abolish the monarchy when Elizabeth dies.

[Anonymous]

I am not sure why everyone is against Meghan. If she was treated as she claims then any criticism of her is unfair. Anyone treated that way would be resentful. And to ask “how dark will the baby be?” Really?

I think the Palace missed a great opportunity with her. She had the most experience of any new royal to deal with the press and present a great picture of the Royals. BUT she would have out shined Kate and the Palace couldn’t have that which is why they kept her hidden.

And Harry leaving the Royal family is NOT Meghan’s fault. He made it clear many years before her he wanted out and to stay in Africa. He just found a new partner to go to new places.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure why everyone is against Meghan. If she was treated as she claims then any criticism of her is unfair. Anyone treated that way would be resentful. And to ask “how dark will the baby be?” Really?

I think the Palace missed a great opportunity with her. She had the most experience of any new royal to deal with the press and present a great picture of the Royals. BUT she would have out shined Kate and the Palace couldn’t have that which is why they kept her hidden.

And Harry leaving the Royal family is NOT Meghan’s fault. He made it clear many years before her he wanted out and to stay in Africa. He just found a new partner to go to new places.

+1

[Anonymous]

The NYTimes has a very entertaining review of The Palace Papers and gives a great taste of Tina Brown's style. It's fantastic. The end of the review acknowledges that there's not a lot of new info in the book, but it's very juicy in the way it tells what we already know.

A couple of quotes from the review:

"Any student of English history knows that zigs and zags in the palatial line of succession are nothing new. Brown was one of a cadre of top newswomen who commented for ABC during the wedding of Prince William to Kate Middleton in 2011. The scale of the ceremonial operation was weighing “heavily on our botoxed brows,” Brown writes. She considered mentioning “the unfortunate fate of previous queens called Catherine: Aragon — divorced; Howard — beheaded,” before deciding this was probably more information than middle-American viewers would want."

"Proudly, she claims to have been the first, in The Daily Beast, to reveal the extent of Jeffrey Epstein’s “depredations.” She congratulates herself, an energetic shower-upper, for turning down one invitation: to the now-infamous dinner party Epstein held in Manhattan for Andrew, attended by Woody Allen; she asked the publicist if it was a “predator’s ball.”"

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/22/books/review-palace-papers-house-of-windsor-tina-brown.html

Well worth reading the whole review. And the book, too, I think!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just read Brothers and Wives. It was surprising (to me) that Diana talked to William (age 13-14?) about her dating life. Yikes. Also, William and Harry were big drinkers/parties at a young age. I blame Charles’ lack of interest for that. Maybe this book will hold you over until The Palace Papers arrives.
As an aside, I am currently reading a novel called The Paper Palace. Totally different kind of book.

I remember it coming out before she died that William was Diana's confidant. I don't think Charles lacked interest in the boys, though. Diana said he was a good and attentive father, so it must be true. She wouldn't waste an opportunity to criticize him. The boys were probably big partiers partly because they were emotionally messed up a bit from their family life but also because they were entitled elites who had the luxury of not having to worry about getting good grades or establishing a career.

Everything I read back in the day said Charles was an absent and uncaring father. He and Harry had a lot of strife and Charles' favorite way to deal with Harry was to leak info to the press.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure why everyone is against Meghan. If she was treated as she claims then any criticism of her is unfair. Anyone treated that way would be resentful. And to ask “how dark will the baby be?” Really?

I think the Palace missed a great opportunity with her. She had the most experience of any new royal to deal with the press and present a great picture of the Royals. BUT she would have out shined Kate and the Palace couldn’t have that which is why they kept her hidden.

And Harry leaving the Royal family is NOT Meghan’s fault. He made it clear many years before her he wanted out and to stay in Africa. He just found a new partner to go to new places.

+1

+1 Misogyny and racism. Before Meghan, everyone hated on Kate. Everyone everywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just read Brothers and Wives. It was surprising (to me) that Diana talked to William (age 13-14?) about her dating life. Yikes. Also, William and Harry were big drinkers/parties at a young age. I blame Charles’ lack of interest for that. Maybe this book will hold you over until The Palace Papers arrives.
As an aside, I am currently reading a novel called The Paper Palace. Totally different kind of book.

I remember it coming out before she died that William was Diana's confidant. I don't think Charles lacked interest in the boys, though. Diana said he was a good and attentive father, so it must be true. She wouldn't waste an opportunity to criticize him. The boys were probably big partiers partly because they were emotionally messed up a bit from their family life but also because they were entitled elites who had the luxury of not having to worry about getting good grades or establishing a career.

Everything I read back in the day said Charles was an absent and uncaring father. He and Harry had a lot of strife and Charles' favorite way to deal with Harry was to leak info to the press.

It's why you hear so many of Harry's shenanigans as a youth but never William's. He was very much thrown under the bus for the sake of the Crown and the heir.

[Anonymous]

Arlington Public Library has it in the grab and go section. Saw several copies available Sunday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just read Brothers and Wives. It was surprising (to me) that Diana talked to William (age 13-14?) about her dating life. Yikes. Also, William and Harry were big drinkers/parties at a young age. I blame Charles’ lack of interest for that. Maybe this book will hold you over until The Palace Papers arrives.
As an aside, I am currently reading a novel called The Paper Palace. Totally different kind of book.

I remember it coming out before she died that William was Diana's confidant. I don't think Charles lacked interest in the boys, though. Diana said he was a good and attentive father, so it must be true. She wouldn't waste an opportunity to criticize him. The boys were probably big partiers partly because they were emotionally messed up a bit from their family life but also because they were entitled elites who had the luxury of not having to worry about getting good grades or establishing a career.

Everything I read back in the day said Charles was an absent and uncaring father. He and Harry had a lot of strife and Charles' favorite way to deal with Harry was to leak info to the press.

OMG

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure why everyone is against Meghan. If she was treated as she claims then any criticism of her is unfair. Anyone treated that way would be resentful. And to ask “how dark will the baby be?” Really?

I think the Palace missed a great opportunity with her. She had the most experience of any new royal to deal with the press and present a great picture of the Royals. BUT she would have out shined Kate and the Palace couldn’t have that which is why they kept her hidden.

And Harry leaving the Royal family is NOT Meghan’s fault. He made it clear many years before her he wanted out and to stay in Africa. He just found a new partner to go to new places.

+1

+2, but especially the bolded. Meghan is a hustler and a hard worker. I think if the Palace told her she needed to do an engagement every weekday and would get 4 weeks off a year vacation she would have happily agreed to that. But that would have made her extremely visible and highlighted how very little Kate and William do. They'd have to step up their game (they wouldn't, they are extremely lazy), or accept that they would be outshined (not acceptable).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure why everyone is against Meghan. If she was treated as she claims then any criticism of her is unfair. Anyone treated that way would be resentful. And to ask “how dark will the baby be?” Really?

I think the Palace missed a great opportunity with her. She had the most experience of any new royal to deal with the press and present a great picture of the Royals. BUT she would have out shined Kate and the Palace couldn’t have that which is why they kept her hidden.

And Harry leaving the Royal family is NOT Meghan’s fault. He made it clear many years before her he wanted out and to stay in Africa. He just found a new partner to go to new places.

+1

+2, but especially the bolded. Meghan is a hustler and a hard worker. I think if the Palace told her she needed to do an engagement every weekday and would get 4 weeks off a year vacation she would have happily agreed to that. But that would have made her extremely visible and highlighted how very little Kate and William do. They'd have to step up their game (they wouldn't, they are extremely lazy), or accept that they would be outshined (not acceptable).

+3. A lot of the criticisms around her with regard to her work ethic are extremely contradictory. She left the royal family because she didn't work! But actually she wanted to work too much! She gets criticized both ways! Who knew hustling and working hard were evil missteps worthy of crucifixion in the eyes of the British public!