JAMES MARTIN has taken to social media to hit back at criticism of his new cookbook, Butter, revealing that his concept was met with doubts initially.
Read more here Daily Express :: Celebrity News Feed
JAMES MARTIN has taken to social media to hit back at criticism of his new cookbook, Butter, revealing that his concept was met with doubts initially.
Read more here Daily Express :: Celebrity News Feed
… a wide variety of books,” states a Friends of … Lucky Day Book Collection, Summer Reading, Hooked on Books, and classes … make the book sale possible through donations of books, CDs and … volunteering their time, and purchasing books,” the release stated.
This post originally posted here The European Times News
The Royal Society Science Book Prize has received the highest number in its 33-year-history, as the judging panel is revealed for the first time….
The £25,000 prize celebrates the best in popular science writing from around the world. A shortlist of six titles, from submissions published between 1st July 2020 and 30th September 2021, will be whittled down by the judges.
Organisers revealed that a record number of entries – 267 – were received this year, the highest number in the award’s 33-year-history. This is an increase of 66% on last year’s submissions.
The judging panel has also been revealed. Immunologist, presenter and writer Professor Luke O’Neill (pictured) has been announced as the chair of judges for this year’s award. He will be joined by television presenter Ortis Deley, mathematician Dr Anastasia Kisil alongside author and creative writing lecturer Christy Lefteri and Clive Myrie, a writer and film-maker.
“Science communication has always been very important, to entertain, inform and inspire,” O’Neill said. “This has never been more relevant than this year, with scientists engaging with the public across all media on a daily basis because of Covid-19. A tremendously interesting number of books have been nominated this year, across a huge range of topics, making our job very enjoyable but also challenging. Science communication is clearly in very good hands.”
The shortlist will be announced in September with the winner announced at a ceremony in November. Each of the shortlisted authors will be awarded £2,500.
Last year the prize was won by Dr Camilla Pang for Explaining Humans (Penguin Books), which examined neurodiverse perspectives on everyday life. In 2019 Caroline Criado Perez won for her examination of gender bias in Invisible Women (Chatto & Windus).
This post originally posted here The European Times News
Prince Harry is set to release a tell-all Megxit memoir that could contain several bombshell allegations and revelations that will no doubt rock the Royal Family
Prince Harry has once again sent shockwaves of fear through the Royal Family after it was revealed that he is planning to release a tell-all memoir about his life in the Monarchy and his bombshell decision to quit his royal duties.
The Duke of Sussex, 36, has secretly working on the memoir for the past year and has since sold the book to publishers at Penguin Random House for an undisclosed amount.
His book marks the first time that a senior royal has written this kind of tell-all, and the news of its existence comes amid an ongoing, and increasingly-bitter, rift between Harry and Meghan, and the rest of the Royal Family.
Thus far, few details about the book’s exact contents have been shared, however Penguin Random House issued a statement in which it revealed Harry’s book will provide an ‘intimate and heartfelt’ look into his life.
‘In an intimate and heartfelt memoir from one of the most fascinating and influential global figures of our time, Prince Harry will share, for the very first time, the definitive account of the experiences, adventures, losses, and life lessons that have helped shape him,’ the blurb reads.
‘Covering his lifetime in the public eye from childhood to the present day, including his dedication to service, the military duty that twice took him to the frontlines of Afghanistan, and the joy he has found in being a husband and father, Prince Harry will offer an honest and captivating personal portrait, on that shows readers that behind everything they think they know lies an inspiring, courageous and uplifting human story.’
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have already rocked the Royal Family to its very core with a series of very damaging allegations about the Monarchy, many of which were made during their bombshell interview with Oprah Winfrey in March.
The Duke then added more fuel to the fire during his mental health-focused Apple TV+ special, The Me You Can’t See, with Oprah, 67, which premiered in May.
But the embittered Harry will no doubt have plenty more to share in the pages of his book – which is currently due to be published in late 2022 – and which will no doubt plunge the Royal Family into further controversy.
So what bombshell revelations can be expected from the Duke’s upcoming tell-all – and will Harry choose to name and shame the people involved?
Naming and shaming? Prince Harry could identify the royal who he and Meghan claimed made comments about ‘how dark’ their son Archie’s skin would be when he was born
The identity of the royal who made remarks about Archie’s ‘dark’ skin
One of the most damaging allegations to come out of Harry and Meghan’s primetime interview with Oprah Winfrey was the couple’s claim that a senior member of the Royal Family questioned ‘how dark’ their son Archie’s skin would be.
Meghan claimed during the sit-down that member of ‘The Firm’ had ‘several’ conversations with Prince Harry about the color of their son’s skin when she was pregnant, saying: ‘All around this same time, we have in tandem the conversation of he won’t be given security, he’s not going to be given a title and also concerns and conversations as how dark his skin might be when he’s born.
‘That was relayed to me from Harry from conversations that family had with him.’
She refused to identify the person in question, saying only that it ‘would be really damaging to them’ if their name was to be revealed.
The allegation sparked a furious controversy – with many demanding to know exactly who had made the comments.
After the interview aired, Oprah revealed that Harry had made clear to her that the comments were not made by the Queen or her late husband Prince Philip. She did not share any other details about their identity.
However, given the increasingly acrimonious relationship between the couple and the rest of the Royal Family, Harry may well choose to name the person involved in his memoir – which would no doubt spark a furious backlash, and could well prompt an investigation into that royal’s behavior.
The truth behind Harry’s bitter rift with his brother Prince William
There has been plenty of speculation about what exactly caused the fall-out between Harry and his older brother William, 39, with the former giving little information away during recent interviews – only telling Oprah that there is ‘space’ between the two of them and that they are on ‘different paths’.
‘We’ve been through hell together, we have a shared experience, but we were on different paths,’ he said.
The rift between the brothers has certainly been made all the more severe by Harry and Meghan’s decision to repeatedly blast the Monarchy in such public forums and it is understood the relations between the siblings are at their lowest point.
Father-of-three William was said to have been left ‘reeling’ by Harry’s comments to Oprah – as well as his younger brother’s decision to share private details about a conversation between the brothers with CBS This Morning anchor Gayle King, who revealed to the world on live TV that the chat was ‘not productive’.
Bitter row: Harry may choose to open up about his ongoing rift with his brother Prince William, which has become increasingly severe in the wake of the younger sibling’s decision to quit royal life
However it is understood that tensions between the once-inseparable Harry and William began long before the former sat down in front of a camera to air his grievances about The Firm to the world.
The widening rift between the brothers has been the subject of much speculation – and is even the subject of a book, Battle of Brothers, by royal historian and biographer Robert Lacey, who claimed that the feud began long before Harry even met Meghan.
According to Lacey, signs of tension between Harry and William began in the early 2000s, when the younger sibling found himself at the center of a drugs scandal and then, months later, became embroiled in furious controversy after he was pictured wearing a Nazi uniform at a costume party.
Lacey’s book suggests that Harry felt abandoned by his brother during this time and this resulted in a serious rift between the siblings.
However, it has been widely reported that their most recent rift began amid ‘bullying’ accusations against Meghan, who is alleged to have pushed several staff members at Kensington Palace into quitting – claims that she has vehemently denied.
Lacey has claimed that William approached Harry to discuss a ‘dossier of distress’ that had been compiled about Meghan’s behavior – however that conversation quickly turned into a bitter row, which became so heated that William ‘threw Harry out’.
Harry’s decision to step down as a senior member of the Royal Family and move to the US with his wife and son only served to worsen the rift between the brothers – neither of whom have ever addressed the fall-out in any detail.
Although Harry hinted at the rift in his interview with Oprah, his book could well offer much more detail about his relationship with his brother – and finally bring to light the Prince’s views on what exactly sparked the fall-out in the first place.
An attack on Charles’ parenting: How did the Prince of Wales cause Harry ‘genetic pain and suffering’
Another shock allegation made by Prince Harry during his interview with Oprah was his claim that his father had ‘stopped taking his calls’ during the build-up to Megxit – before ‘cutting him off financially’ when the Sussexes moved to the US.
Harry claimed that his brother and father are both ‘trapped’ in the Royal Family, before revealing that he and Charles were not on speaking terms after his father stopped picking up the phone, adding: ‘There’s a lot to work through there. I feel really let down.’
The Duke claimed that he’d had ‘three conversations’ with the Queen and ‘two conversations’ with Charles about his desire to step down as a senior royal, but insisted that his father ‘stopped taking his calls’ after that second chat.
According to Harry, Charles refused to continue speaking with his son about his plans for Megxit after he ‘took matters into his own hands’ out of concern for his own mental health, and that of his wife and son.
‘It’s really sad that it’s gotten to this point, but I’ve got to do something for my own mental health, my wife’s, and for Archie’s, as well, because I could see where this was headed,’ he said.
‘I feel really let down because he’s been through something similar, he knows what pain feels like, [and] Archie’s his grandson.
‘But at the same time – I will always love him – but there’s a lot of hurt that’s happened and I will continue to make it one of my priorities to try and heal that relationship.
‘But they only know what they know, or what they’re told.’
Much like William, Charles has never addressed his relationship – or rift – with Harry, however it may be that the Duke of Sussex has plenty more to say on the matter, and he could well choose to once again blast his father’s behavior, this time in the pages of his book, rather that in a TV interview.
The book could also provide Harry with the opportunity to address his upbringing, something that he touched upon briefly during an appearance on Dax Shepherd’s mental health-focused podcast, Armchair Expert, when he blasted his father’s parenting, suggesting that it left him with ‘genetic pain and suffering’.
During the interview, Harry claimed that Charles had ‘suffered’ because of his upbringing by the Queen and Prince Philip, and that the Prince of Wales had then ‘treated me the way he was treated’, calling it ‘genetic pain’.
”I don’t think we should be pointing the finger or blaming anybody, but certainly when it comes to parenting, if I’ve experienced some form of pain or suffering because of the pain or suffering that perhaps my father or my parents had suffered, I’m going to make sure I break that cycle so that I don’t pass it on, basically,’ he said.
‘It’s a lot of genetic pain and suffering that gets passed on anyway so we as parents should be doing the most we can to try and say, “You know what, that happened to me, I’m going to make sure that doesn’t happen to you.”‘
Meghan v. Kate: What really happened between the two women to cause such acrimony?
In the opening minutes of her interview with Oprah, Meghan made a shock claim about her relationship with Kate Middleton, accusing the Duchess of Cambridge of making her cry in the lead-up to her wedding to Prince Harry.
Rumors of a row between Meghan and Kate, 39, made headlines around the world after the couple’s royal wedding in May 2018 – however it was initially reported that the argument over a flower girl’s dress had left the Duchess of Cambridge in tears, and not the other way around as Meghan told Oprah.
The Duke of Sussex could address reports of a rift between his wife and Kate Middleton – who Meghan accused of making her cry in the lead-up to the couple’s May 2018 wedding
A source said at the time: ‘Kate had only just given birth to her third child, Prince Louis, and was feeling quite emotional.’
When asked about the fall-out, Meghan insisted that ‘the reverse happened’, saying: ‘I don’t say that to be disparaging to anyone, because it was a really hard week of the wedding.
‘And she was upset about something, but she owned it, and she apologized.
‘And she brought me flowers and a note, apologizing. And she did what I would do if I knew that I hurt someone, right, to just take accountability for it.’
Meghan added that it was ‘shocking’ that the ‘reverse of that would be out in the world’.
Harry has never addressed the rumors and reports about a fall-out between his wife and his sister-in-law, however his new book could well mark the first time that he chooses to voice his own opinions about the relationship between the two women.
He may also choose to speak out about speculation that Meghan did not feel she received enough ‘support’ from Kate in her early days within the Royal Family, something that has been claimed by several sources over the years.
Harry’s return to London: How the Duke was perceived during reunions with his family in the wake of bombshell Oprah interview
In the wake of his bombshell TV and podcast interviews, Harry has returned to the UK to reunite with his family on just two occasions.
The first reunion took place in April, when the Duke of Sussex flew to London to attend the funeral of his grandfather, Prince Philip, who was in hospital recovering from surgery when Harry and Meghan’s Oprah interview first aired.
His second trip home took place earlier this month, when he traveled to the UK in order to unveil a statue in honor of his late mother Princess Diana.
On both occasions, there was a great deal of speculation about the reception that Harry might have received from his relatives, many of whom are said to be incredibly upset and angry over the public bashings dished out to the Monarchy by Harry and Meghan over the past year.
Although the Duke is said to have met privately with his brother William, his father Charles, and his grandmother the Queen during these trips, Harry himself has never spoken out about what it was like to reunite with the royals following the furious controversy that arose from his numerous interviews.
Before Harry traveled back to London to unveil his mother’s statue on July 1 – which would have been Princess Diana’s 60th birthday – it was reported that the brothers had been exchanging friendly text messages about England’s performance in the Euro
True or false? After Harry and Meghan announced the name of their daughter Lilibet, a briefing war broke out between the Sussexes and the Palace over whether they sought permission
Did Harry and Meghan really ask the Queen’s permission before naming their second child Lilibet?
The Sussexes’ decision to name their daughter Lilibet after the Queen’s childhood nickname sparked furious debate – and much backlash – with many questioning whether they had sought permission from the Monarch before announcing their second child’s moniker publicly.
In the days after Lilibet ‘Lili’ Diana’s birth, a briefing war broke out between the couple and the Palace, after senior Buckingham Palace sources told the BBC’s royal correspondent Jonny Dymond that the Queen was ‘never asked’ for her opinion on the couple’s choice of name.
However, Harry hit back within 90 minutes of the BBC’s report being published through a statement from his and Meghan’s close friend Omid Scobie that insisted the Queen was the first person the Duke called after the birth of his daughter.
Omid, who wrote the bombshell Finding Freedom biography of the couple, also claimed the Sussexes would not have used the name Lilibet unless the Queen had supported the move.
Harry, who together with wife Meghan announced they were expecting a girl during their interview with Oprah in March, took things a step further mere hours after his rebuttal of the report, threatening the BBC with legal action through law firm Schillings.
Notice of the legal action was followed by a carefully-worded statement that raised more questions than answers over whether the Queen did give permission or if the couple simply informed her of their intentions in a fait accompli.
The statement insisted that the BBC report was wholly wrong and read: ‘The Duke spoke with his family in advance of the announcement, in fact his grandmother was the first family member he called.
‘During that conversation, he shared their hope of naming their daughter Lilibet in her honor. Had she not been supportive, they would not have used the name.’
Meghan’s ‘bullying’ controversy: Harry’s take on claims his wife made several Kensington Palace staff members quit – and who they are
Days before Meghan and Harry’s bombshell interview with Oprah was due to air, The Times published an article in which it claimed that the Duchess of Sussex had been accused of ‘bullying’ several members of staff at Kensington Palace.
The Times reported that a complaint had been lodged against Meghan in October 2018 by a senior member of staff at the Palace – the Sussexes’ former communications secretary Jason Knauf.
Knauf is said to have made the official complaint following an allegation that the Duchess ‘drove two personal assistants out of the household and was undermining the confidence of a third staff member’.
The article said that Knauf seemingly acted to make Buckingham Palace aware of the need to protect staff who claimed they were coming under unbearable pressure from Meghan. It further claimed that Harry ‘pleaded’ with him not to pursue the allegations.
In his email Knauf also made clear he was concerned nothing had been done, or would be done in future, to protect palace staff.
The Times quoted from his email, which is alleged to have said: ‘I am very concerned the duchess was able to bully two PAs out of the household in the past year. The treatment of X was totally unacceptable.’
He added: ‘The duchess seems intent on always having someone in her sights. She is bullying Y and seeking to undermine her confidence. We have had report after report from people who have witnessed unacceptable behavior towards Y.’
However, soon after the report was published, Harry and Meghan hit back in a statement issued by their lawyers, who accused Buckingham Palace of ‘using’ The Times to ‘peddle a wholly false narrative based on misleading and harmful misinformation’ about the Duchess of Sussex just days before the couple’s CBS interview was due to be broadcast.
Her lawyers said the former actress was ‘saddened by this latest attack on her character, particularly as someone who has been the target of bullying herself and is deeply committed to supporting those who have experienced pain and trauma’.
The statement added that the former actress was ‘saddened by this latest attack on her character, particularly as someone who has been the target of bullying herself and is deeply committed to supporting those who have experienced pain and trauma’.
Buckingham Palace refused to comment but senior royal sources told MailOnline that complaints being made by ex-staff members were not in any way being orchestrated by the palace or members of the Royal Family, who were at the time focused on Prince Philip’s health problems in hospital.
During their interview with Oprah, both Harry and Meghan accused the Palace of failing to ‘protect’ them against the media, with the latter saying: ‘I think that was really hard to reconcile because it was only once we were married and everything started to really worsen that I came to understand that not only was I not being protected but that they were willing to lie to protect other members of the family, but they weren’t willing to tell the truth to protect me and my husband.’
However, the couple did not address the ‘bullying’ allegations specifically during their interview – which is understood to have been taped before the accusations were publicly reported – and the book would therefore give Harry the perfect forum to air his opinions on the scandal publicly for the first time.
Suffering: Meghan told Oprah that she had struggled with suicidal thoughts, and that she had asked the Palace for help, only to be told ‘that it wouldn’t be good for the institution’
Which ‘senior’ staff member knew that Meghan was struggling with suicidal thoughts?
Meghan’s confession to Oprah that she had battled suicidal thoughts during her time within the Royal Family was one of the more shocking revelations to come out of the interview – particularly given that the Duchess of Sussex alleged that her pleas for help were ignored by the Monarchy.
The Duchess of Sussex said that she ‘couldn’t be left alone’ and that she told her husband she ‘didn’t want to be alive anymore’ before claiming the Buckingham Palace HR department ignored her plea for help because she wasn’t a ‘paid employee’.
She said she didn’t want to tell Harry at first because of the loss he had suffered as a result of his mother’s death, but she did and he ‘cradled me’.
Meghan said she begged a senior member of the royal to assist her get help for mental health issue but she was left to suffer alone.
Describing how she considered ending her life believing it ‘was better for everyone’, Meghan said: ‘I knew that if I didn’t say it, that I would do it. I just didn’t want to be alive anymore. And that was a very clear and real and frightening constant thought. I remember how he just cradled me.
‘I said that I needed to go somewhere to get help. I said that ‘I’ve never felt this way before, and I need to go somewhere’. And I was told that I couldn’t, that it wouldn’t be good for the institution’.
The couple has never gone into further detail about who Meghan spoke to while struggling with her mental health issues – and which person or persons inside the Palace told her that she couldn’t seek professional help.
However Harry also laid into his family, claiming their ‘lack of support and understanding’, the couple’s mental health problems and fears ‘history repeating itself’ with Meghan like his mother Diana, who died in 1997.
Who expressed jealousy of Prince Harry and Meghan after their return from their Australia tour in 2018?
If Harry chooses to use his book as an opportunity to name and shame the people who have come under attack from the Sussexes, then he may well take the chance to call out the members of the Royal Family whose attitudes towards the couple ‘changed’ in the wake of their official tour of Australia in 2018.
The Duke hinted that certain royals were jealous of his wife following the success of the couple’s trip – and the incredibly positive reaction that Meghan received during their tour.
‘You know, my father, my brother, Kate and and all the rest of the family, they were really welcoming,’ he said of his wife’s introduction into the royal family. ‘But it really changed after the Australia tour, after our South Pacific tour.’
He continued: ‘It was the first time that the family got to see how incredible [Meghan] is at the job.’
Prince Harry hinted the Royal Family became envious of Meghan during the couple’s tour of Australia, saying that their attitudes towards the couple ‘changed’ in the wake of the trip
The comments echoed the way in which The Crown portrayed his father Prince Charles as growing jealous of Diana’s popularity during their own tour of Australia in 1983
Oprah then drew parallels between Harry’s accusations and scenes from the most recently series of The Crown in which Charles is seen growing increasingly jealous of Princess Diana and the incredibly positive reception she received as the couple took part in their own tour of Australia in 1983.
She asked Harry whether his and Meghan’s tour of Australia ‘brought back memories’ of his parents’ trip, saying: ‘Your father and your mother went there, and your mother was bedazzling. So, are you saying there were hints of jealousy [from the rest of the royal family]?’
Harry refused to confirm whether he thought other royals were envious of Meghan, but said: ‘I just wish that we would all learn from the past’.
‘But to see the… to see how effortless it was for Meghan to come into the family so quickly in Australia and across New Zealand, Fiji and Tonga, and just be able to connect with people…’
He did not disclose whether the ‘changes’ in attitude he was referring to applied to the entire Royal Family, or whether he was commenting on the behavior of specific people – something that may well be brought to light in his as-yet untitled memoir.
Harry’s real feelings about the Royal Family’s treatment of his late mother Princess Diana
The Duke made expressly clear his fears about ‘history repeating itself’ in regards to Princess Diana’s death and Meghan’s treatment at the hands of the media, telling Oprah during their Apple TV+ series that his mother was ‘chased to death while in a relationship with someone who wasn’t white’.
Diana died in 1997 alongside Egyptian film producer Dodi Al Fayed, who she had been dating for several months.
Although an inquest ruled that Princess Diana and her partner died as a result of the ‘grossly negligent’ driving of Henri Paul, who was three times over the drink-drive limit at the time of the crash, Harry said he felt there were clear parallels between himself and his mother, particularly after he began dating a person of color.
‘My mother was chased to her death while she was in a relationship with someone who wasn’t white,’ he said. ‘And now look what’s happened.
Harry has slammed the media’s treatment of his mother on a number of occasions, telling Oprah during their Apple TV+ show that he believes Diana was ‘chased to death’, however he has not often spoken about his views on the Princess of Wales’ experiences within the Royal Family, or her treatment by the Monarchy
‘You want to talk about history repeating itself, they’re not going to stop until she dies. It’s incredibly triggering to potentially lose another woman in my life. Like, the list is growing.
‘And it all comes back to the same people, the same business model, the same industry.’
Harry admitted he wished he had called out racism when he first started dating Meghan, but said he would no longer accept it.
‘My biggest regret is not making more of a stance earlier on in my relationship with my wife and calling out the racism when I did,’ he said.
Harry also admitted during the series that he turned to alcohol and drugs to help him cope with the trauma of his mother’s death, saying: ‘I was willing to drink, I was willing to take drugs, willing to try and do the things that made me feel less like I was feeling.’
However the Duke has not yet spoken out in great detail about his mother’s experiences within the Royal Family, or her treatment at the hands of the Monarchy – much of which has been compared in great detail to Meghan’s statements about her life in the Palace.
Several parallels were pointed out between Meghan’s sit-down with Oprah and the interview that Diana did with BBC journalist Martin Bashir in 1995.
But Harry has remained fairly tight-lipped about his own views on the way in which his mother was treated by the Monarchy, both during her marriage to Prince Charles and in the years after they separated.
The book’s blurb notes that his tell-all will touch upon the ‘losses’ that have ‘helped to shape him’, suggesting that his mother’s life and death will be featured in some capacity – providing him with the chance to speak out about her experiences in the Royal Family.
Prince Harry’s explosive memoir about the royal family will only ‘further damage’ his relationship with his brother and father, an expert has claimed.
The Duke of Sussex, 36, has been secretly working on a book for nearly a year which he has since sold to Penguin Random House.
It will tell the story from his childhood growing up in palaces, to his time in Afghanistan and his decision to leave the royal family in 2020. Sources close to Prince Charles said Harry’s father was ‘surprised’ at the news and that the royals had not been warned that a book was in the offing until the news broke tonight.
Speaking to FEMAIL, royal expert Robert Jobson said the book will only ‘lead to conflict’ and will be ‘hugely damaging to the House of Windsor and Monarchy as an institution.
The author, who wrote bestseller ‘Prince Philip’s Century’, added that Harry is already ‘rich and famous’ and the book serves no purpose but to ’cause damage’.
‘As night follows day, this was always going to happen,’ he told FEMAIL.
‘It will become an international bestseller, but at what cost to the monarchy? There will be nowhere to hide’.
Royal expert Robert Jobson says Harry’s book will only ‘lead to conflict’ and will be ‘hugely damaging to the House of Windsor and Monarchy as an institution
He also compared Harry to his great-grandfather’s brother Edward, who abdicated so he could marry American divorcee Wallis Simpson.
‘It is not the first time an “exiled” senior royal has written a memoir, the former King Edward VIII wrote one.
‘His book “A King’s Story: The Memoirs of HRH the Duke of Windsor, KG” was published to a media storm in the 50s. It caused a sensation.
‘But this is bound to cause mayhem amongst the House of Windsor.
‘If Harry, which seems inevitable, goes into detail about mental health issues involving his wife and alleged racism at the heart of the royal family, it will be hugely damaging to the House of Windsor and the Monarchy as an institution.
‘Harry is already hugely rich and famous so apart from damaging his family – which a book like this will inevitably do, I am not sure what he is trying to achieve. Whatever he says will lead to conflict.
‘No wonder there is a rift between the royal brothers and problems with his father.
‘How can any bridges be built when he is doing this?’
Royal expert Richard Fitzwilliams, added to FEMAIL that Harry uses media appearances as a ‘form of therapy’.
‘It’s not being published globally until late 2022,’ he said of the book. ‘I do think that it is very important that an accommodation should be reached between the royal family and the Sussexes between now and then.
The first draft of the manuscript, currently untitled, is said to be almost completely written ahead of Harry’s October deadline
‘He is donating the proceeds to charity. It is however worth remembering that the knowledge he is writing it and that it could be explosive and that it will be widely read worldwide is something members of the royal family will be bearing in mind when dealing with the Sussexes between now and then.
‘The Sussexes problem is the keep going public. Harry has an extraordinary habit of getting headlines – Oprah, James Corden, celebrity podcasts, AppleTV and he sees these appearances as a kind of therapy.
‘It’s very difficult when you’re dealing with the Sussexes, that you don’t know what’s coming next. It might not be published until 2022.
‘It’s so far in the future, it’s a potential lever if they want something from the royal family.
‘He’s exercising his demons, and he doesn’t see it as disruptive at all. He sees it as becoming a new person – escaping being trapped like Charles and William.
‘But he’s still sixth-in-line to the throne, a significant royal even if he’s not a working royal.
‘He wants an audience to understand how he can become a new him, and we don’t know that will be yet.
‘Will it be his truth or the truth? And will they be the same or different?
‘A lot of his Oprah interview didn’t pass a fact check, and it’s difficult for the outside world to tell what is true, which is a big concern.
‘They still see themselves as victims , my hope is that it’s constructive and won’t lead to further revelations that will damage his family
‘It appears it was written before the rift was healed – so it could be extraordinary.
‘He’s saying the book is written from the the perspective of ‘the man he’s become’, and this is certainly what he feels at the moment.
‘It’s hard to see exactly what Harry and Meghan want and we might not know until we see what in the memoir is going to include and what might embarrass his father and what’s going to be about their time as working royals.
‘He has talked a lot about healing, but what do the Sussexes want for the royal family?’
This post originally posted here The European Times News
George Soros (Trades, Portfolio) needs no introduction. This man is complex, however. Even though I have read all of the books Soros has written himself, I was surprised to still learn quite a lot about this fascinating man in Michael T. Kaufman’s biography.
If you have read any of the books Soros wrote himself, you will be aware that Soros, who is Jewish, survived Nazi-occupied Hungary in World War II thanks to the actions of his father and then went to study economics and philosophy at the London School of Economics after the war. Kaufman goes into great detail about Soros’ upbringing.
As soon as Soros’s father realized the situation, he declared to his family:
“All the normal rules are suspended. This is an emergency. If we remain law-abiding citizens and continue our current existence, we are going to perish.”
This of course was a correct call and almost certainly saved the family. Experiencing this extreme situation no doubt was a good preparation for a later career in leveraged trading, as
Stanley Druckenmiller (Trades, Portfolio) later pointed out. Various details of this wartime period are interesting just from a pure historical point of view. It is fair to say the difficult environment toughened up a young Soros given the risks he and his family were taking living under false identities. Later on, we learn from one of Soros’ sons that the guru was obsessed with the importance of survival.
Soros was indeed always a competitive person thanks to the rivalry with his older brother, and sports was an important part of this. Immediately after the war ended, a teenaged Soros was asked by his father to trade some jewelery and currency on the black market. We learn that this activity gave Soros an introduction to markets along with some street smarts.
After Soros moved to London, he found it difficult to fit in. He was, for all intents and purposes, a loner. This gave him time to read the works of Adam Smith, Hobbes, Ricardo, Bergson and Machiavelli, as well as Karl Popper, whose ideas on Open Society were very influential on Soros. As Time magazine noted:
“It was from Popper that Soros gained his personal philosophy of reflexivity. It boils down to the sensible if not entirely original idea that people always act on the basis of imperfect knowledge of understanding; that while they may seek the truth – in the financial markets, law or everyday life – they will never quite reach it, because the very act of looking distorts the picture. He says he has used this theory “to turn the disparate elements of my existence into a coherent whole.”
Soros moved to Wall Street and for a few years was effectively an analyst, broker and fund manager all at the same time. Regulatory changes meant this was unsustainable, Soros took a young Jim Rogers and some clients and spanned out the fund he was managing within the brokerage house. While others disliked Rogers due to a perceived arrogance in the young analyst, Soros appreciated his work ethic. Indeed, we learn from the book that Soros always looked to work with what he called “Doers.”
Rogers and Soros shunned Wall Street. Their New York office was not in Manhattan, and they came up with their own trade ideas, with Rogers reading mountains of trade journals for intel. Rogers apparently thought the Street was always wrong and that he and Soros were always right. Soros thought that both the Street and they were at any time fallible. Soros’ attitude was to invest first and investigate later as he sought to jump into trends early. Since Soros wanted to grow, he wanted Rogers to train new analysts, but Rogers apparently did not want to, which led to tension and eventually their split.
Although the details of Soros’ early career and the relationship with Rogers was interesting, apart from the famous sterling trade against the Bank of England, which is described in great detail, there is not much meat on other great trades Soros has executed. Although, to be fair, the section on how Soros reacted to the 1987 crash was insightful. His background in survival influenced his decision to take huge losses on the day of the crash, even getting out of positions at worse than market rates for the sole purpose of ensuring a proper derisking and survival to fight another day.
Human nature being what it is, prospect theory in behavioral psychology shows most people prefer to gamble with losses and collect winnings early. Doing this with the leverage Soros has going into the 1987 crash could have wiped out his firm. Instead, his focus was survival at any cost. That gave Soros Fund Management the dry powder to trade after the crash and recover losses to end the year higher. I am sure most people would assume Soros being such a guru would have made money in the crash, but it was not the case.
The world’s best fund manager and stateless statesman
Although Soros was known within the industry thanks to Institutional Investor calling him the world’s best fund manager and due to his book, “The Alchemy of Finance,” the geopolitical elites had constantly ignored Soros until the Bank of England trade and a London Times interview with Anatole Kaletsky helped propel his status in the geopolitical sphere, where Soros longed to be influential. Having long tried to keep a low profile as a fund manager, Soros decided to raise his profile in the media as he turned his attention increasingly to philanthropist activities and a role as a “stateless statesman.”
Soros was never a very good manager, but he recognized this and hired a fellow named Gary Gladstein to look after the operational side of Soros Fund Management, and it was Gladstein who described Soros’ skills as a fund manager and his ability to visualize the entire world’s money and credit flows:
“He has this macro vision of the entire world. He consumes all this information, digests it all, and from there he can come out with his opinion as to how this is all going to be sorted out. What the impact will be on the dollar or other currencies, the interest rate markets. He’ll look at charts, but most of the information he’s processing is verbal, not statistical.”
It was also mentioned in the book that Soros was excellent at compartmentalizing the different roles he was playing in his life. One wonders, though, if his activity in “activist philanthropy” was an important part of the “verbal” information he was processing on world affairs, given his hands-on approach in many of the emerging markets where he was active with his foundations.
Soros has been a global philanthropist, but much of his early efforts were spent opposing communism in Central and Eastern Europe. He funded dissidents and actually spent plenty of time with them, preferring their company to that of Wall Streeters and tycoon businessmen. Again, reading the book one really wonders if this access to on-the-ground geopolitical intel was an advantage to Soros on the investment side of things, but for the longest period he tried not to invest in countries where he had his foundations operating.
Soros the philanthropist was also a risk-taker. A man named Fred Cuny, whom he employed after a hugely successful project in war-torn Sarajevo, was then killed in war-torn Chechnya. Although it seems that Soros was not to blame here, it was an example of how Soros always pushed the envelope in his activities. This section was compelling reading, purely for its historical insight.
Overall, for those interested in Soros the investment guru, then “The Alchemy of Finance” or “Soros on Soros” are better reads, or just the two chapters on Soros in the excellent “More Money Than God.” However, for those interested in Soros the complex individual, who simply speaking has lived quite an amazing life, this book gives a lot more color and historical context and is an easy and fascinating read.
This post originally posted here The European Times News
It was one of the most astonishing political – and personal scandals – in modern British history.
A Labour MP who stole a dead man’s name, left his clothes neatly folded by a Miami beach and vanished.
Here, in the final part of our serialisation of her book about John Stonehouse, his daughter breaks a 46-year silence to explain how his financial deceit and sexual betrayal unravelled.
We were wrapping presents in my father’s study and remembering him on a surreal Christmas Eve, five weeks after he had disappeared from a beach in Florida, presumed drowned.
What exactly had happened to our adored father we didn’t know. But we were very sure that we would never see him again.
As for any family suffering tragedy or grief, Christmas 1974 was unbearably poignant.
Our father, John Stonehouse, had always left his festive preparations until the afternoon of Christmas Eve, when he’d go shopping in Central London.
Back home, he’d always wrap the gifts he’d bought using unusual and amusing paper and make his own gift-tags with funny little drawings on them. We missed him so much.
At about 1am on Christmas morning, my mother Barbara, brother Mathew, older sister Jane and I were still in his study when the phone rang.
It was a newspaper reporter saying they were 99 per cent certain my father had been found in Australia.
The journalist rang back and confirmed the news, saying that the Melbourne police were going to make a statement at 4am our time.
I can’t even begin to describe our feelings at this astounding turn of events: elation, bafflement, disbelief – all mingled with despair in case it wasn’t true.
At 4am, Jane answered the phone. We saw the utter amazement on her face and heard her say: ‘Daddy, Daddy, is it really you?’
What exactly had happened to our adored father we didn’t know. But we were very sure that we would never see him again. Pictured: John Stonehouse and his wife, Barbara
Jane wrote in her diary: ‘I went weak, cold, hot, shaky. He sounded as if all his nerves were being stretched right to their limit, ready to snap. His voice was high and he was definitely not himself. All he could say was that he was sorry, sorry, sorry.’
Jane handed the phone to my mother, who was visibly shaking. She fell into a chair.
‘John?’ she asked, unbelieving.
‘Yes, darling, it’s so good to hear your voice,’ he said.
My mother’s questions came in quick succession: ‘What’s happened? Where are you? What have you been doing?’
He replied: ‘I’m sorry I’ve given you so much trouble, darling. It didn’t work out. I tried to make it easier for you all. I’m here at Melbourne police station.’
Jane answered the front door. It was three journalists holding air tickets to Melbourne. She wrote a note to my mother, who was still on the phone: ‘Reporters have tickets to Australia. Do you want to go?’
My mother told my father what the note said and asked if he wanted her to come. ‘Yes, come as soon as you can,’ he said, adding: ‘And bring Sheila with you.’
This request came as a total shock to the family. We had no idea that Sheila, his secretary and the woman who had been his secret mistress for five years, was so important to him.
He’d had affairs before but they had always fizzled out.
Sheila was 28, Jane was 25, and I was just about to turn 24. She was our generation, not his. In her diary, Jane would later write: ‘What a nerve – he’s flipped his lid.’
But in that moment we were all crying, laughing and hugging each other and trying to analyse what he meant by ‘it didn’t work out’ and ‘make it easier for you all’. We were baffled but thrilled.
Before she packed, my mother phoned Sheila with the news that my father was alive. It sounded as if she already knew – as we’d later find out, she did.
My mother asked her not to go out to Australia and Sheila agreed. By 5.30am a three-car cavalcade was heading for Gatwick Airport.
My parents were reunited on Boxing Day at Maribyrnong Detention Centre, near Melbourne. My father looked dreadful: ashen, with glazed but wild eyes.
Sheila was 28, Jane was 25, and I was just about to turn 24. She was our generation, not his. In her diary, Jane would later write: ‘What a nerve – he’s flipped his lid’
He’d lost a stone, looked more than his 49 years, his hair was turning grey and his voice was strangely high-pitched.
He was quite unlike the confident, self-assured man my mother knew. After warmly embracing in the full gaze of prison officers and police, they were ushered into a bleak interview room.
My mother had many things to say to him. He’d allowed her and the family to think he was dead for five weeks, and then had the audacity to ask her to bring his mistress with her, she said.
She’d told him before that another affair would be the end of their marriage.
For five minutes she explained how cruel he’d been to casually abandon his children, allowing us and her to suffer the grief of believing him to be dead when he was very much alive – not to mention leaving her to deal with all the problems he’d left behind with his numerous political and business activities.
When she’d finished, my father broke down and cried and cried, sobbing his heart out. My mother realised for the first time that he was really ill, and was almost certainly suffering a complete nervous breakdown.
A few days later my father had a consultation with an eminent Australian psychiatrist Dr Gerard Gibney, who diagnosed severe depression.
A large part of this, he said, was to do with the fact that as an MP, my father had persisted in following causes for oppressed peoples around the world, becoming seriously distressed when he couldn’t improve their lives in the way he wanted.
Dr Gibney said that instead of physical suicide, my father had committed ‘psychiatric suicide’, by taking on the identities of two of his deceased constituents, Joseph Markham and Clive Mildoon, and escaping into their personalities.
Leaving those new identities behind and returning to being John Stonehouse again was causing him immense mental anguish.
His doctors and lawyer suggested that it would be very bad for my father in his fragile psychological state to contemplate a return to Britain in the near future.
On December 29, he was released on bail, and afterwards moved into a flat in Melbourne with my mother and 14-year-old brother Mathew.
John (pictured in the 1970s) and Barbara Stonehouse, celebrated their 26th wedding anniversary at their favourite restaurant in London on the evening of November 13, 1974
Members of our family would take it in turns to fly out to live with him in Australia, experiencing at close quarters his tragic and ongoing breakdown.
We never knew what to expect. Some days he would cry, scream, bang his head on the floor repeatedly, rush around shouting, and even lose complete control of his body. On others he would be found curled up in a ball on the sofa.
Or he’d just cut out completely when somebody was talking to him by falling asleep in a chair. In public, he would put on a brave face, but in private he was a wreck.
Back in Britain, the knives were quick to come out in the Labour Party for their runaway MP.
Even while my father was still missing, the Prime Minister Harold Wilson had made a Commons statement about allegations that my father had been acting as a Czech spy.
Josef Frolik, a defector from the Communist Czech secret service, had accused him of being one of their agents.
Frolik had no proof, had never seen my father’s file, or given him any money. The head of MI5 didn’t believe Frolik because he was a known liar: his unfounded fabrications included stories about Prime Minister Edward Heath and Labour’s Michael Foot.
But rogue Right-wing elements within MI5 wanted to use the Frolik misinformation for their own purposes and they made sure the rumour about my father being a spy spread.
As the information came from MI5, people believed it. A miasma of suspicion and contempt fell over my father and he was doomed.
However, Wilson said that the claims had been thoroughly investigated and disproved, as had suggestions that my father had been working for the CIA. John Stonehouse ‘was in no way a security risk’, he told MPs. But the rumours continued to rumble.
When he was arrested on December 24, my father sent a telegram to Wilson saying he’d had a mental breakdown and adding: ‘I can only apologise to you and all the others who have been troubled by this business.’ The Prime Minister didn’t reply.
By early spring, there had been so much bad publicity about the Stonehouse case that Labour politicians were keen to dissociate themselves completely from my father. My mother, too, would face years of total silence from former friends and colleagues.
Being involved in the party as an MP for 17 years meant nothing.
There was no sympathy or understanding. So much for the supposed ‘comrades’. On January 28, 1975, a parliamentary select committee was set up to ‘consider the position of Mr John Stonehouse’.
But, shockingly, a detailed report on my father’s condition written by Dr Gibney was kept from them by civil servants and diplomats.
Mr A. R. Clark of the Foreign Office’s south west Pacific department had sent a memo to colleagues saying: ‘I do not think that it would be appropriate to give the [Dr Gibney’s] letter a wider distribution. If the select committee want a psychiatric report, they will no doubt formally go about getting one.’
Sir Thomas Brimelow, the permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office, agreed, adding a handwritten note: ‘The Secretary of State may think it better that letters such as this should be kept in the Private Office under Ministerial Control.’
While all this was going on unknown to my father, he himself was desperate to see his mistress. On February 6, my mother picked up the phone in our rented flat in Melbourne and found Sheila on the line.
‘Where are you?’ my mother asked.
‘Singapore,’ replied Sheila. ‘John asked me to come.’
My mother handed the phone to my father and heard them making arrangements to meet in Perth.
Mum was devastated, telling my father: ‘If she comes to Australia, she can take on the role of nursemaid, secretary, chief cook and bottle-washer. I’m going home.’
There was a silence, and then my father lost control.
He grabbed my mother and threw her to the floor, yelling: ‘Why can’t you understand?’
My mother was face-down on the floor and my father leaned over, grabbed her hair, and used it to bang her head up and down.
My brother was in the sitting room and came running in, shouting ‘Stop it, Dad, stop it!’ and pulled him away, telling my mother to get in the kitchen and shut the door.
Mum stood with her back to the door, panting and amazed. Nothing like that had ever happened to her in her life before. He’d turned into a monster. Usually my father was so gentle.
In the bedroom, he was banging his head against the wall and crying his heart out.
My mother reached for the phone to try to contact his psychiatrist, but my father burst into the room, snatched the phone from her hand, and shouted: ‘Who are you calling? I suppose you’re calling the police.’
‘I’m trying to get the doctor,’ my mother replied. ‘You need help.’
He shouted: ‘Yes, I do need help! Your help! And what do you do? You call the police. You bitch!’
He then pulled the phone cord from its socket and started beating my mother about the head with the handset.
My mother had no idea it would be their last ever anniversary dinner. Six days later, my father flew to Miami. Pictured: John and Barbara with their children, including Julia (left), in 1965
It broke, shattering on the floor. Then he put his hands around her throat and started banging her head against the wall. My mother thought he’d choke her to death, but Mathew managed to drag him off.
My father broke loose, and rushed out of the front door, shouting: ‘I’m going. Do you hear? This is the last you’ll see of me! I’m going to kill myself. That’s what everybody wants and then you’ll all be happy.’
Mathew ran after him, but he was in the car and away.
It was many hours before my father’s solicitor Jim Patterson tracked him down, by which time he was subdued and contrite.
But it was not to be the last such terrifying episode.
The day after the attack, my father went to Perth to meet Sheila.
My mother by this time had decided she’d had enough and was driving to Sydney to fly home with Mathew. But perhaps against her better judgment, she was persuaded by Patterson that it would be good for her to talk to my father and Sheila face to face.
With emotions running so high, a showdown was inevitable.
The ill-fated meeting took place in the early evening at a picnic area near a dam at Albury, New South Wales.
As the love triangle sat together, my father told my mother he wanted both women in Melbourne: his wife so she could transcribe a book he was writing; Sheila so she could help him with questions about his business affairs from the Department of Trade and Industry, whose inspectors would be arriving shortly.
The insensitivity didn’t seem to occur to him.
My mother told him: ‘No. I won’t have that girl there. If she goes to Melbourne, I go back to England.’
He shouted: ‘I want you both! You are both important to me.’
‘Look,’ my mother said, ‘our suitcases are packed and in the boot of the car. I’m ready to fly to England tomorrow with Mathew and I will do so if you bring that girl back to Melbourne.’ She meant it.
His manic behaviour was truly frightening
Suddenly, he jumped to his feet and yelled ‘If you leave me, I’ll kill myself’, and started running towards the dam.
Sheila screamed at my mother: ‘Barbara, you must do something!’
Something inside my mother snapped and she turned to Sheila and said: ‘You do something.’
Sheila ran after him. My brother, who was waiting in the car nearby, turned the headlights on in time to see my father climbing up on to the edge of the dam.
Mathew drove up to my mother and she slipped into the driving seat and sped towards my father and Sheila.
By now, he was off the dam and he and Sheila were sobbing in each other’s arms.
Somehow my father persuaded my mother to stay on in Australia, and they returned together to the flat in Melbourne. Sheila, who had until recently wrongly believed she was pregnant with my father’s child, remained in Sydney.
My father’s manic behaviour was so out of character that it was truly frightening. It could well have been a symptom of him withdrawing from the drug Mandrax on which he had in recent years become dependent – a procedure so dangerous it often necessitated hospital supervision.
Perhaps he had taken some Mandrax or Mogadon, the other prescription drug he regularly used, to Miami when he faked his death and he had reached the last of his supply?
Eventually the medical profession became wise to the dangers of the highly addictive Mandrax and it was banned in the UK in 1984 – ten years too late for my father.
In March 1975, my father and Sheila were arrested on various charges relating to his disappearance, including conspiracy and the theft of four cheques that belonged to one of his companies worth £7,500, £6,981, £2,112 and £3,029.
My father faced a further 15 charges including not paying his most recent credit card bills, applying for a credit card and passport in the name of Joseph Markham, and obtaining birth certificates in the names of Joseph Markham and Clive Mildoon.
On July 17, escorted by Scotland Yard, the pair returned to Britain.
DURING my father’s trial at the Old Bailey in the summer of 1976, the judge, Edward Eveleigh, told the jury it was not their business to consider mental health issues.
‘Those are matters which can be taken into consideration in mitigation by the court, if appropriate, but they are not matters which affect guilt itself,’ he said.
The difficulty faced by my father’s defence team was that he had seen a psychiatrist only after his arrest. The court was constantly trying to press the idea that he wasn’t crazy before his arrest, but only became so because of it.
To us, as his family, it was patently obvious that a sane John Stonehouse wouldn’t adopt alternative personas and fake his own death. But people just weren’t interested in the mental health aspect of what had happened.
If this trial was happening today, experts would be asked to describe the psychological effects of taking too much Mandrax and Mogadon, taken individually and in combination, over a two-year period.
But this was 1970s, when those drugs were handed out like sweets, and the subject of men’s mental health was not talked about.
Convicted on charges of theft, fraud and deception, my father was sentenced to a total of 95½ years in prison, to run concurrently, which meant he would be locked up for just seven.
Judge Eveleigh said the extraordinarily harsh sentence was about being a deterrent.
‘Its principal object is to inform others that they cannot profit by this kind of behaviour or any criminal behaviour,’ he stated.
Sheila was given a suspended sentence of two years. The lead prosecutor, Michael Corkery QC, accused her of being a ‘shrewd and tough operator’.
But having read all the trial statements, I see nothing to indicate that Sheila had any idea what was going on inside my father’s head before he faked his death.
While I might not admire her capacity to have an affair for years with my father, she was never the wild sort of character who’d go along with such a mad plan.
John Stonehouse was escorted from the Old Bailey to Wormwood Scrubs in London before being transferred to a high-security prison at Blundeston in Suffolk.
From there, he wrote to the family: ‘I have been feeling happier and more relaxed than for at least four years and possibly longer. I feel more like a whole person.
‘The worst possible conditions at the Scrubs are so much better than the tension and desolation that I had to bear before. I am learning at last what a joy it is to have an “ordinary” life.’
He was released from jail in 1979, and married Sheila in 1981. He died in her arms at the age of just 62, seven years later after a series of heart attacks.
I wish my father had never been caught in Melbourne and had succeeded in his escape from reality, living a calm, new life, playing chess, listening to jazz and classical music, soaking up the sun.
He might have lived to the age of 83, when he could have used newly released files from the Czech secret service to prove that he was, in fact, innocent of the allegations of treason that never quite went away.
For most people, John Stonehouse will for ever remain the infamous runaway MP. But to me, my wonderful father was a hero.
Everywhere I’ve gone in my life, I’ve met people across the world who were helped by him.
Travelling around East Africa in the late 1960s, I spoke to many who remembered his efforts on their behalf in their struggle for justice and independence.
For years, I wasn’t allowed to pay in Indian restaurants in Britain because many are run by people from Bangladesh (another country he helped), and when they saw the Stonehouse name on my credit card or cheque they’d say: ‘No, no, you must accept our gratitude. Come again, any time, no charge.’
My father taught me something invaluable: that the world can be changed if people talk enough and work enough together.
After all he suffered, he is at peace. I send him my undying love and respect.
John Stonehouse, My Father: The True Story Of The Runaway MP, by Julia Stonehouse, is published by Icon on July 19 at £16.99.
To pre-order a copy for £14.44, go to mailshop.co.uk/books or call 020 3308 9193 before July 25. Free UK delivery on orders over £20.
This post originally posted here The European Times News
Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in your country. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to your market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism.
This post originally posted here The European Times News
Colin Kaepernick isn’t done pushing the left-wing agenda and forcing his way into the spotlight just yet. In May the one-time football player and BLM Marxist activist announced the creation of Kaepernick Publications. Now he has released plans for a new children’s book series. He is working in partnership with Scholastic to create the picture books, and the first one will be titled “I Color Myself Different.”
Most everyone knows that Kaepernick is not famous for being an all-star football player or an award winning author. He made his millions from spitting on the country that gave him his fortunes and kneeling during the national anthem because he is just so ‘oppressed.’
The first book released by Kaepernick Publications is titled “Abolition for The People: The Movement For A Future Without Policing & Prisons.” The book was edited by none other than Colin Kaepernick himself who has no experience in the writing field.
Now, he has decided that his football career prepared him for a writing career. His first book, which is supposed to be for children, will be edited by Scholastic VP Andrea Davis Pinkney and published in April 2022. If his writing career is anything like his football career, we won’t have to deal with him for long.
Kaepernick posted this on Twitter announcing the new book:
I’m excited to share that I’ll be publishing I COLOR MYSELF DIFFERENT, a children’s book, with @KaepernickPub & @Scholastic on 4/5/22! #IColorMyselfDifferent is deeply personal to me & honors the courage & bravery of young people everywhere. Pre-order at https://t.co/0LpdyphIsD pic.twitter.com/kfnLZUVpBP
— Colin Kaepernick (@Kaepernick7) July 15, 2021
The publication will discuss “a significant childhood memory of when Kaepernick first documented that he was different from his adopted white family.” The book’s description states that “During a kindergarten exercise on drawing families, Kaepernick remembers putting down the yellow crayon he had been using to draw his family and picking up the brown crayon for himself. This moment crystallized for him the differences marked by his adoption, and how acknowledging those distinctions could encourage us all to be more accepting of ourselves and each other.”
If we are to be more accepting of each other then why are we pointing out differences in skin color? Because divisiveness sells in today’s world and that is where Kaepernick’s talent truly lies.
“Colin Kaepernick’s inspiring story, with themes of identity, race, and self-esteem, will resonate deeply with all kids,” said President and Publisher of Scholastic Trade Publishing Ellie Berger. “We are privileged to bring this work to young readers around the world for the very first time.”
Pointing out that everyone has different colored skin and should be treated a certain way because of that does not “resonate” with children, that’s the exact opposite of what MLK wanted.
The Senior Management team at Scholastic is majority white, nonetheless Kaepernick had this to say:
I’m excited for Kaepernick Publishing to be collaborating with Scholastic on books with Black and Brown voices at the forefront. I hope that our books will inspire readers to walk through the world with confidence, strength, and truth in all they do.
Instead of imagining a world without police I’d like to imagine a world without Scholastic.
This post originally posted here The European Times News
In April 2019, Reggie Fils-Aimé stepped down from his role as Nintendo of America’s president. It might seem like yesterday for some, but since then he’s actually done quite a lot.
He’s now planning to share the story about his rise to the top in a new book – Disrupting the Game: From the Bronx to the Top of Nintendo. According to listings online, this book will feature both “leadership lessons” and “inspiring stories” that aided Reggie along the way. As the reader, you’ll apparently be able to use these lessons to springboard their own success and happiness.
“Learn from Reggie how to leverage disruptive thinking to pinpoint the life choices that will make you truly happy, conquer negative perceptions from those who underestimate or outright dismiss you, and master the grit, perseverance, and resilience it takes to dominate in the business world and to reach your professional dreams.”
Here’s what else you can expect to learn:
– About the challenges Reggie faced throughout his life and career-from his humble childhood as the son of Haitian immigrants, to becoming one of the most powerful names in the history of the gaming industry.
– What it takes to reach the top of your own industry, including being brave enough to stand up for your ideas, while also being open to alternative paths to success.
– How to create vibrant and believable visions for your team and company.
– How to maintain relentless curiosity and know when to ask questions to shatter the status quo.
Amazon has the launch date down as 24th May 2022, but this date is no doubt subject to change. When we get an official update about the release date and price of Reggie’s book, we’ll let you know.
This post originally posted here Nintendo Life | Latest News
Bill Harris, CFP®, RMA®, Author of ‘Inheriting Your Spouse’s IRA: A Widow’s Guide to Keeping More of Her Assets’.
This new book tackles the estate tax and legal maze to provide an empowering roadmap for widows inheriting an IRA
DUXBURY, MA, UNITED STATES, July 14, 2021 /EINPresswire.com/ — WH Cornerstone Investments is excited to announce the publication of ‘Inheriting Your Spouse’s IRA: The Widow’s Guide to Keeping More of Her Assets’ a new book written by co-founder Bill Harris, CFP®, RMA®.
An IRA is one of the most common assets a couple will have in their portfolio and inheriting a deceased spouse’s IRA touches almost everyone’s lives either directly or indirectly through parents, family and friends. Yet until this book, very little attention has been given to the surviving spouse’s inherited IRA. Bill Harris, CFP®, RMA® provides a comprehensive planning guide for navigating the estate tax and legal maze associated with the IRA universe which also includes the new tax rules and limitations brought about by the recent SECURE Act.
As a CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER Practitioner and Retirement Management Advisor, Bill’s knowledge and experience optimizes his widowed clients’ financial resources. His expertise of over 30 years focuses on helping widows obtain financial peace of mind, rise up, and navigate their path forward.
‘After years of seeing and hearing stories from clients and prospects of inaccurate information regarding inherited IRAs shared by uninformed or under informed advisors, I felt compelled to share this knowledge,’ explained Harris. ‘IRA’s are often a couples largest asset and ensuring that it is inherited properly is vital because these decisions are irrevocable.’
Widows face tax hurdles that can cause financial harm on their inheritances, including the widows’ tax, the Social Security ‘tax torpedo’, the surtax on net investment income, IRMAA, Medicare Part B (medical insurance), and Medicare Part D (prescription drug coverage) surcharges. Important decisions on how to handle an inherited IRA can be irrevocable and costly if not properly advised. This book is a roadmap packed full of real-life examples to educate and support a surviving spouse.
About WH Cornerstone Investments
WH Cornerstone Investments is a wealth management firm based in Duxbury, MA. With four decades of experience, co-founders Bill Harris, CFP®, RMA® and Paula Harris have seen that life throws many curveballs. This is why at WH Cornerstone they are passionate about empowering mid-life widows to get back on their feet, rise up, and navigate their path forward.
Visit us on social media:
This post originally posted here usnews