Harry and Meghan- Netflix Trailer.

In 1987, Robert Maxwell responded to the publication of two unauthorised biographies of himself with numerous lawsuits, threats of legal action against individual booksellers, and the rapid publication of an authorised biography by Joe Haines, political editor of the Mirror Group which Maxwell owned. Of the two unauthorised books, Maxwell: A Portrait of Power by Peter Thompson and Anthony Delano was withdrawn from sale and all unsold copies pulped after Maxwell successfully sued the publishers and authors for libel.[10] The second book, Maxwell: The Outsider by Bower sold out in hardback but Maxwell prevented the paperback edition appearing, in part by buying the publishing company which held the paperback rights. Maxwell also filed a libel action against Bower and the hardback publishers, Aurum Press. Maxwell allowed this action to lapse in 1990 but only after Bower and Aurum had submitted a detailed defence of the book.[11]

Maxwell also tried to sue Bower in the English courts over an article published in America, by the magazine The New Republic, on the basis that it had 136 British subscribers.[12] Bower also believes that Maxwell tried to break into his house and also went through his phone records and bank statements.[13]

Also from Wiki. Just because left wing Corbyn supporters don’t like what he wrote about JC doesn’t mean a thing.

This Tim Bower?

www.insider.com/tom-bower-meghan-markle-revenge-book-faces-criticism-2022-7

The one with the great record as an investigative journalist?

In 2019, a biography of Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn, Dangerous Hero, was published. Serialised at length in the Mail on Sunday, it was a number two Sunday Times bestseller.[30][31] The book accused Jeremy Corbyn of being an anti-Semitic Marxist. The book has been seriously criticised by Peter Oborne, writing in Middle East Eye, for its lack of referencing, alleged factual errors and the systematic omittance of relevant facts.[32] Stephen Bush, writing in The Guardian, referred to the book as a "hatchet job" littered with "rudimentary errors"[33] and journalist Oscar Rickett called it "garbage".[34] In the book, he made false allegations against the Palestinian Return Centre. Along with the publisher HarperCollins he made a full, unqualified withdrawal of the allegations, but neither apologised nor paid any money to the complainant or the lawyers. The allegations are to be removed from all future editions of the book.[35] The Mail on Sunday and MailOnline which serialised the book had to pay full damages and issue a written apology.[36][37][38]

Got that from Wiki. Probably all made up. 🙂

As I said 'backed up by several people with first hand knowledge'. The book makes no pretence at giving H&M's side of the story, but that will hopefully balance out their one-sided story, which as we know is full of lies and unproven claims.

Used to be.

Okey doke.

Tom Bower used to be an investigative journalist and worked on BBC’s Panorama. He knows his stuff and there’s been no lawsuits from H&M. He knows his stuff.

Good lord no. I won't be reading Harry's book either. Life's too short.

Have you read the book, volver ?

This Tom Bower book?

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/23/meghan-harry-tom-bowers-biography-piers-morgan

She gave a tv interview, said a friend arranged a blind date with
Harry, all she asked of her friend ‘is he nice?’
A 30 something divorcee who only asks ‘is he nice’ , didn’t believe her .

I find it so strange to read of people on GN pontificating on the lifes and relationships of a family they only know via media coverage. They really have no idea what is or is not true
Well I for one only go by what is factual, i.e. from their own mouths, on a programme they have made, or backed up by several people with first hand knowledge (Tom Bower's book for instance).

I'm ... just... 🤦🏼

Meghan in "No Nanny" scandal

It'll be in the Mail tomorrow.

Oh I see,thank you for that Joseanne I truly had no idea as we don't watch TV that much so these things tend to pass me by. I can't believe Harry and Meghan haven't got Nanny facilities to help with child care and to back up Doria? Surely not another of 'their truths'.

I'll be following GrannyGravy13's advice from here on in.

I'll never be proud of a system that allows a PM to tell lies to the HoS with impunity. Call me old fashioned...

No problem with the First Minister of Scotland having severe amnesia when giving evidence at the Alex Salmond court case though.

Still none the wiser about pooey Sue, but there you go.
Hi Jaberwok, it was a cheeky nickname given to a contestant by Ant and Dec in Celebrity Jungle, I think they also called her two poo Sue.
In the show she kept talking anout her toilet habits. Mike T was friendly with her.

Sparklefizz

I'm proud to be British too, volver, whatever you may say.

I'll never be proud of a system that allows a PM to tell lies to the HoS with impunity. Call me old fashioned...

The ex-Prime Minister couldn't do didly squat unless the Head of State signed it off. So he just lied to her.

No different then to an elected HoS.

The RF differ from the Kardashians in that they don’t get paid per engagement. That was one of Meghan’s gripes. Being paid handsomely now and I see the private jet was out again. Yet still they bleat!

Just watched on BBC News site H&M receiving their award for whatever it was.

Harry joked that he thought it was just a ‘date’ night, surprised to be sharing it with 1500 other people, and that they ‘don’t get out much, with having two young/small kids’.

Is Doria not doing her share of babysitting duties I wonder?

I'm proud to be British too, volver, whatever you may say.

Still none the wiser about pooey Sue, but there you go. No none of the royals were paid, or ever are paid for interviews or walk abouts and are not even remotely like the Kardashians, I'm not aware that the Kardashians are into good works or anything remotely like that, which separates them from the RF,and yes the RF do make me proud to be British.

We may talk about members of the royal family, based on their public appearances and actions, but they don't generally invite the media into their homes and lives for money. Diana, Charles, Andrew all made the mistake of giving personal interviews, I don't believe for money but I may be wrong, and none of it went well, did it?

The ex-Prime Minister couldn't do didly squat unless the Head of State signed it off. So he just lied to her.

Them's the rules.

Makes you proud to be British, doesn't it?

The ex-Prime Minister had more to do with lawmaking
And there were lots of complaints about his hair on GN! 😂

Have you noticed how grey Charles's hair is now?

Meghan and Harry are turning themselves into a royal version of the Kardashians.

They're all Kardashians. All of them, Catherine, Andrew, Charles, the lot of them. We talk about how lovely their hair is or how we don't like them much.

And then we let them sign off our laws.

I find it so strange to read of people on GN pontificating on the lifes and relationships of a family they only know via media coverage. They really have no idea what is or is not true

I expect some people chat about the Kardashians, Love Island and other families who invite the cameras into their homes so that people can watch their (edited) lives.

That is the danger of this - Meghan and Harry are turning themselves into a royal version of the Kardashians.

Remember It's Royal Knockout? I think the conclusion was that it had been a mistake.