Meghan, but not Meghan

eazybee

I am very sorry to have to admit this, but in the cause of common decency I looked up books written by Princess Michael of Kent and the author's name on the front cover is: HRH Princess Michael of Kent.

Still think it is frightfully naff.

I didn’t know she’d written any books eazybee but I guess the point is, did she get paid for her writing or did she donate it all to charity, as royalty normally does?

No I haven't.
I have a dim recollection that she was accused of plagiarism in one of her historical romances.

Have you read the, eazybee?
Are they any good?

I am very sorry to have to admit this, but in the cause of common decency I looked up books written by Princess Michael of Kent and the author's name on the front cover is: HRH Princess Michael of Kent.

Still think it is frightfully naff.

I made heavy use of the word apparently because I hadn’t researched it, just read a bit about it in articles etc. I don’t want to state as fact stuff I haven’t gone to source about.

I do know I used the word a lot!

No, using the word apparently in my last post would be incorrect as they're not allowed to use their title for personal financial gain.

Smileless2012

She's not entitled to use her title on the cover of the book if she's to profit from any sales suziewoozie and how could she be accused of "cashing in on her royal connections" if she didn't use her title?

Your post comes across as being based on "unfounded allegations and judgements" to me.

Should your post include the word ‘apparently’??

She's not entitled to use her title on the cover of the book if she's to profit from any sales suziewoozie and how could she be accused of "cashing in on her royal connections" if she didn't use her title?

Your post comes across as being based on "unfounded allegations and judgements" to me.

whatever she does is wrong.
She did lots of things that were right but she has, just lately, made a few wrong moves very publicly, causing consternation to her in-laws.

So, even if we like her, we may not like what she has done.

Even if we like her, it does not mean we have to think her book is wonderful either.

Snubbing the royal family ? so funny

That's what I was led to believe NotSpaghetti so by having 'Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex' as opposed too MM or MW, if the proceeds don't go to charity she's using her title for her own personal financial gain.

I don't recall you posting with such passion being "against nasty mean unfounded allegations and judgements based on gossip and partial information" in the aftermath of that horrible 'interview' suziewoozie or does your moral outrage only extend to H & M and not the RF in general?

NotSpaghetti

Lillie

So are the proceeds from the book sales going to a charity?
A childrens charity?

No.
Which us why some people are complaining about putting "The Duchess of Sussex" as the author.

Apparently titles can't be used for financial gain. To make use of a title (apparently) it should be a charitable endeavor.

It would (apparently) have been fine to make money out of it if released without the title.

Who knew?
?‍♀️

People are complaining about it because it is MM - whatever she does is wrong. If she’d arranged to give all the money to charity she’d have been accused of virtue signalling. If she hadn’t used her title on the cover, she’d have been accused of snubbing the RF and people would have said that anyway she was still cashing in on her royal connections. Etc etc etc ad nauseum

Lillie

So are the proceeds from the book sales going to a charity?
A childrens charity?

No.
Which us why some people are complaining about putting "The Duchess of Sussex" as the author.

Apparently titles can't be used for financial gain. To make use of a title (apparently) it should be a charitable endeavor.

It would (apparently) have been fine to make money out of it if released without the title.

Who knew?
?‍♀️

Callistemon

Read my posts. They are not nasty or mean

It's just a book. I commented on the book and books which are written by celebs, nothing else.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

???

I was making a general point about your comment about my predictability .

Read my posts. They are not nasty or mean

It's just a book. I commented on the book and books which are written by celebs, nothing else.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

???

Callistemon

I was agreeing with Alegrias - perhaps we shouldn't judge by a couple of pages. Sadly, I won't be buying it as I've no-one age appropriate to share it with now so cannot write a ful review.

However, I'm probably judging what I've seen by the other books on another thread which are favourites with small children.

Nothing if not predictable though, hey, suziewoozie!

???

You mean I’m predictably against nasty mean unfounded allegations and judgements based on gossip and partial information? Too right I am.

I was agreeing with Alegrias - perhaps we shouldn't judge by a couple of pages. Sadly, I won't be buying it as I've no-one age appropriate to share it with now so cannot write a ful review.

However, I'm probably judging what I've seen by the other books on another thread which are favourites with small children.

Nothing if not predictable though, hey, suziewoozie!

???

Callistemon

^BTW, the text of the book looks awful. I wouldn't buy it for any children I know. I like the pictures though.^

The illustrations (what I've seen) look sweet but not engaging for a toddler.
The text is dire.

If I thought it was a good book, suitable for toddlers, I would say so but from the little I've seen, it's not, whoever wrote it.

Based of course on not having read or seen a copy in RL or tried it out on a toddler. Takes literary criticism to a new depth ????

BTW, the text of the book looks awful. I wouldn't buy it for any children I know. I like the pictures though.

The illustrations (what I've seen) look sweet but not engaging for a toddler.
The text is dire.

If I thought it was a good book, suitable for toddlers, I would say so but from the little I've seen, it's not, whoever wrote it.

Alegrias1

?

To be fair, there is a bench.

Is that the benchmark of a good book?

I'd like to weigh in. I've got no strong feelings either way about M&H, at least not IRL. I'm happy they are happy together and I do admire Harry for his military service and for the Invictus Games. They are a bit silly in their LA lifestyle but they're not the only ones like that.

So I really can't understand the terrible things people say about them and the rumours that are taken as gospel. I can understand how it might all have been newsworthy to begin with, but there does seem to be prolonged and inexplicable loathing of them.

Rosie51

suziewoozie to answer your question, I'm against all spreading of harmful rumours about anybody, and that includes harmful rumours about other members of the royal family as they're people too. I've not read either book, but from observations by other posters there doesn't seem to be any plagiarism involved. There are only so many themes to be explored, there are bound to be overlaps. I think The Worst Witch was possibly the first to have a school for witches, doesn't mean J K Rowling plagiarised it for the Harry Potter books .
I think MM and H are marmite to some people so opinions of the rights and wrongs of their behaviours are always going to be unbending, with some being very pro and others very anti. It's always wrong though to allow that bias to perpetuate false allegations.

Thanks for replying. I did get exercised by the posts accusing her of plagarism based on no evidence whatsoever and I stand by being cross about that. There really isn’t even an overlap re themes but anyway, it’s been done to death now. The posters concerned were in the wrong and there’s no excusing that.
As for my position on MM you could try being just a bit fairer to me - I rarely support her as such but rather defend her against really unfair criticism. I think the MM threads are just truly awful on the whole .

suziewoozie to answer your question, I'm against all spreading of harmful rumours about anybody, and that includes harmful rumours about other members of the royal family as they're people too. I've not read either book, but from observations by other posters there doesn't seem to be any plagiarism involved. There are only so many themes to be explored, there are bound to be overlaps. I think The Worst Witch was possibly the first to have a school for witches, doesn't mean J K Rowling plagiarised it for the Harry Potter books .
I think MM and H are marmite to some people so opinions of the rights and wrongs of their behaviours are always going to be unbending, with some being very pro and others very anti. It's always wrong though to allow that bias to perpetuate false allegations.

pinkquartz

susiewoozie

yes I remember now the women knitting by the guillotine.

I do have a bias against MM I will admit. I think she spreads unhappiness and reminds me of the man my DD married. I won't buy the book Boy on a Bench because it would be a waste of my money but I read the details on Amazon and it is not about the same theme as The Bench.

So not really plagarised then.

I read the whole book - it’s available on line. What are the similarities - besides a boy, a bench and a father?

Rosie51

^I get that MM is hardly flavour of the month but what I don’t get is why anyone thinks it’s acceptable to spread rumours about her plagiarising a book they haven’t even bothered to read. Is it not possible to intensely disapprove of her and everything she stands for without resorting to that ?^

SW of course it's possible to do so. I've already said that she comes in for unjustified criticism, but there are posters and I will name you as one of them, who will not seem to accept that any criticism of her is justified. In my opinion you claim every and any criticism is a hatefest, which is patently untrue. I haven't read her book so will not comment on it. I will comment that she is using the title Meghan, Duchess of Sussex as author. Why not be the independent woman she is and use Meghan Markle or Meghan Windsor if she prefers to take her husband's name? I'll criticise her for using the royal connection while not being willing to fulfil any royal obligation.

I’m talking about deliberately spreading false rumours about her as opposed to for example criticising her use of her title.( I think all titles are complete rubbish btw.) Those are two different things entirely - I tend to criticise the former. Which side of the fence are you on with spreading accusations about her book? I’ve read The boy on the bench and, like others, only read the publicity about the storyline of her book. They are completely different. I don’t imagine for one minute that her book is groundbreaking - celebrity publishing is as mindless as sporting a title - but that’s not spreading false rumours about her is it ?