To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyses reviews to verify trustworthiness.
For two people who pride themselves on their “investigative journalism” they’ve done no investigating at all. I am halfway through the book and they have just opined that, in contrast to Kate prior to her marriage to William, Markle had “charity coming out of her ears”. Who on earth told them that? Meghan Markle did no charity work whatsoever until, aged 33, she engaged the services of a PR company who organised a few charity events for her to help raise her non-existent public profile. If you add up the small amount of “charity work” she actually did it amounts to less than two weeks worth. Ever boastful & painfully narcissistic, she chose to characterise these very few achievements as “lifelong activism” but there’s no sensible reason why these sychophantic clowns should give it credence. One speech to the UN (about herself) one speech to One Young World (about herself), one short trip to Rwanda followed by a glowing self-penned article (about herself) and three days in India learning about an initiative she had previously claimed in the media she’d set up by herself, but hadn’t. That’s it. That is all this self-promoting woman has ever done...and this is “charity coming out of her ears” & “lifelong activism” on behalf of women? Get real.
And they are flat out wrong when they claim that the Queen “offered” Archie a title and an HRH, but was turned down. Archie automatically has a title as the son of a Royal Duke (he is the Earl of Dumbarton - he’s just not styled that way) and he is not entitled to an HRH until Charles is on the throne, at which point he’ll automatically be a prince & an HRH. The Queen would have had to change the law to give him one at birth, and why should she? Perhaps this book is a good example of why Americans shouldn’t write books about the British royal family.
And I have to assume these two men are American? If they are British then shame on them for painting Markle’s desperation to weigh in on political matters & being prevented by the royals as somehow unfair.. The British Royal Family are NON-POLITICAL BY LAW. Don’t they understand that? Meghan Markle wanted the platform her marriage gave her but had not the slightest intention of playing by any of the rules everyone else has to. Her wings were not clipped by anyone...she gladly yanked them off by herself in return for worldwide fame, a fabulous wardrobe, a £35m wedding and a free house. So she wanted to weigh in on issues she probably knows nothing about? Tough. She should have made a play for Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk instead.
And yet again the absurd & insutling charge that the British media are racists. 99% of that woman’s coverage in all the tabloids, broadsheets & magazines was glowingly positive. Her mother (a black woman) has taken on a saintly, wise woman persona thanks purely to her coverage in the “racist” British press. No, Markle’s rudeness, overwhelming sense of entitlement, showboating & hypocrisy is what has bought her negative press articles. She and that non-entity she married are the architects of their own downfall - and for these idiot writers not to see that is ridiculous.
Don’t bother with this book unless you want to be dripped in Markle sugar. It’s a hagiography, not a genuine expose.
Nothing new in this poorly investigated book....to call Meghan the Duchess of Cambridge and Harry the Duke of Cambridge after their wedding is blatantly incorrect as everyone knows they are in fact the Duke and Duchess of Sussex!! Don't bother with this book, not worth it!!
This reads like an extended edition of The Sun, complete with breathless pronouncements, numerous so-called happenings with no basis in fact and particularly bad English. For all that it is, nonetheless, a prurient page-turner.
I'm glad I used a gift card to buy this instead of my money. As others have written , this is not well written. The narrative jumps around and veers wildly in point of view. For example, it says that Michael Curry's sermon at the wedding had guests eating out of his hand and then a couple of paragraphs later, that the guests were relieved.when it was over. The authors state William and Catherine were married at almost exactly the same date and in the same location as Charles and Diana. However, Charles and Diana were married at St Paul's and William and Catherine at Westminster Abbey. They refer to Harry and Meghan as the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge several times. With blatant errors like this, how much can be believed? It also rehashes many old stories. This was a disappointment.
I put the book down before I was even halfway finished. Too much coverage of bloodlines for hundreds of years and author repeated the whole story of the Diana/Charles fiasco from their first meeting until she was killed. Nothing we haven't read or heard a hundred times.
Several previous reviewers covered the basics. The book is badly written with numerous errors in grammar and in facts. It is also rather biased. Actually only a relatively small part is about the current situation. There are chapters about key players, their family background and their lives. A good deal of genealogy is included, with the family histories of Meghan's mother and Kate's father being the most interesting. The Diana -Charles debacle is gone over as is the William-Kate romance. (William ultimately showed far more intelligence and thoughtfulness than his father or brother in choosing a wife.) It really seems that the authors wanted to get a head start in the Megxit sweepstakes by publishing this thrown together mishmash before the other books are released. I regret spending money on it.
I sure hope the authors/publishers read this.... In the first few pages, the authors state that Meghan starred as an ATTORNEY in Suits. Her character is a paralegal, which is most certainly NOT an attorney. Yes, there is a big difference. How can I believe anything these authors say if they cannot get a well known, easily checked fact correct. Credibility is GONE. I'm an author myself - this would be very embarrassing to me.
The book is overpriced, especially now that the credibility is gone. I love reading everything about the Royal family - initially hesitant to buy because of the price, but was tired of the Tudors and needed something.
I find this book interesting, but in a bad way. Interesting how they will provide material that has been reported in the press and confirmed by press releases in the palace, then sneak in their insults and jabs at Kate and William. Going along reading something that I've read before, yes sounds good, then BAM, snuck in is Kate is jealous of Meghan and envious of her! William treated Kate like crap when they dated, see how my better Harry is?! Then back to "facts." Please. This book is heavily influenced by the Markle camp. Too much emphasis on the "young" bride who had "Hollywood running in her veins" despite being a virtual nobody in Hollywood and America prior to going public with Harry and is almost 40.
This book is also intentionally vague about the most controversial things Meghan and Harry have pulled the past two years, for good reason. It would completely spin the narrative away from "bad guy" William and "mean girl" Kate if the authors really dug into why the British public, the monarchy, the family and press have had it with the Sussex duo. This book and its objective is chaotic and doesn't really make sense, which is why I and obviously many other readers think it has been influenced by the Markle camp. Their entire PR blitz the past two years has been chaotic and lacks an objective or central theme.
I don't recommend this book. You would learn more sticking to tabloids.