'Courtiers' by Valentine Low

[RandomPenguinHouse]

Extracts of this were being discussed on a previous thread ('The Times) which just finished.

I'm interested in buying this book, despite never having ever bought any other book about the Royal Family and never having watched The Crown.

I'm interested however in the archaic rituals of the Royal Court and how it works as an employer, and also how the courtiers advise.

Yes the excerpts were focused on Harry and Meghan but presumably that's just for clicks given the relevant timing, and that the book goes well beyond that.

Poignant that in the synopsis for it on The Foyles website it says:

The Queen, after a remarkable 70 years of service, is entering the final seasons of her reign without her husband Philip to guide her. Meanwhile, Charles seeks to define what his future as King will be, with his court wielding ever greater influence as he plans for his imminent accession.

www.foyles.co.uk/witem/biography/courtiers,valentine-low-9781472290908

Anyone else thinking of buying this?

In terms of the Oprah interview, bringing it back to ‘Courtiers’ , it says that the Oprah interview was planned/set up at least a year or so before it happened. (I’m going by memory here but pretty sure it was at least a year.)

So the machinations for it started off not long after their wedding, if not before.

I wonder what the initial tone and content of it was planned to be.

I agree that it would have been much better longterm overall for H&M in my opinion if they’d taken the approach@Ohnonevermind described above.

No problem, RandomPenguinHouse

William on the other hand has had the same loss but doesn’t monetise it

And there we have another of those inconvenient truths which Harry's excusers prefer to gloss over ...

Charles blusters and rants about inanimate objects-
It’s said his temperament is fiery and flares and then cools fast, like a struck match.

That is much, much easier to work alongside than a someone gunning for you repeatedly in a deeply personal and unkind manner as mentioned in the Courtiers book extracts.

Prince Charles isn’t perfect, but he probably is able to engender support from his loyal staff, because he’s inherently not targeting individuals.

To be honest how often do we read on mumsnet that men taking their temper out on inanimate objects are abusive.

The message to the woman or servant is clear. Behave.

It's not a positive.

That's actually another place that Harry could have used his influence and experiences to raise awareness from within the RF on how children are best supported.

Children who are bereaved, something like 1 in 20 children in the UK will either loose a parent or sibling before they turn 16.

Wills and Harry aren't alone. But were insulated from some of the difficulties bereaved children face like financial stuff or the pain of watching a parent die from cancer.

I don’t think Charles has a massive ego that requires lots of attention and strokes either. He’s a kind man essentially.

That’s a really good point. Harry could have worked to raise awareness of the impact of bereavement. There’s loads he could have done.

And his worst swear word was "stinking" 

I love it. Private Eye has a stinky leaky pen among its Royal paraphernalia novelty adverts. (Joke page for those who don't read Private Eye).

I think there's a difference between complaining about a stinking leaking pen and smashing a hole in the plaster wall or hurling a chair through a window fwiw Cuck00soup

Yes excellent point @Dinoteeth

I think there's a difference between complaining about a stinking leaking pen and smashing a hole in the plaster wall or hurling a chair through a window fwiw Cuck00soup

Charles strikes me as being very needy, which is one of the many reasons he and Diana were such a terrible match. She was very needy too, in a different way.

I agree that he's probably not an easy man to live with but I don't think he's a bad person. I think he may turn out to be a surprisingly popular king.

Who's supposed to have hurled the chair at the window?

No one @Dinoteeth !

For goodness sake don't get me accused of spreading false rumours.

It was a reply to this post:

"To be honest how often do we read on mumsnet that men taking their temper out on inanimate objects are abusive.

The message to the woman or servant is clear. Behave.

It's not a positive."

I think Charles is someone who both has a big ego AND is kind essentially.

I got the impression from the extracts that him losing his temper was done in a way that was amusing to others, like witnessing a toddler tantrum. I didn't get the impression it was inherently scary.

Also relevant is that Charles's courtiers that are described in the book are also (I believe) white men of a similar age if not older. Him throwing things won't have been threatening to him in the same way it would have been if he did it in front of young women. The people he did it in front of were able to stand up to him. Conversely, he - unlike Meghan or Harry - was always going to be the future king so I think that gave him some automatic respect amongst the people who would do that sort of job. The quote from one of the senior courtiers for Charles makes it clear that he let Charles know he would quit if spoken to in a certain way. Charles never did.

Meghan's and Harry's behaviour as described in the extracts appeared to be particularly against women, and wasn't just one-offs but repeated belittling, undermining attacks.

I would have thought that Philip would have been a tremendous support to 'the boys' when Diana died, as his childhood was far from happy and settled. I suppose that at the end of the day it's down to the individual characters and the luck of the people they come across.

I firmly believe that William would not be the man he is without his early involvement with the Middleton family, and unfortunately Harry didn't have anyone providing that role within his own life, at the time he needed it.

He didn't meet Meghan until his 30's, and she seems to have encouraged a 'poor old me' approach, rather than something more positive.

I'd agree Philip must have been amazing for the boys to understand what they were going through.
The DoE awards were based on stuff he did himself at Gordonston. And he roped the old Gordonston head into helping him set it up.

Remember Harry had long term GFs before Meghan including Chelsy who he was with for about 8 years. Her family must have had influence on him. Maybe not as stable as the Middletons thought.

Harry definitely has the poor me approach. Which is something I don't think Philip had. He was definitely a you've just got to get on with it sort of a guy.

William and Harry are and were quite capable of thinking for themselves and taking approaches without being influenced by their women or their families.

Even if the Middletons (who personally I'm not really a fan of) and Meghan weren't in the picture, fundamentally William and Harry are two different personalities.

My impression is that Harry is naturally more outwardly emotional than William. I'm like that too btw, so I'm not saying that as a negative per se, but let's face it, it can be both a big negative and a big positive in the media dependent on how its expressed and relayed.

William also seems more naturally resilient, and mature, maybe as the oldest he had to grow up more quickly.

And let's not forget that as the heir, William probably wouldn't be allowed to 'monetise' his experience with his mother.

Harry clearly has some great strengths, but talking about his issues with his family are not utilising those. I think that ultimately he was raised and trained for Royal Life from day one, and that's a struggle he's always going to have. He might well have been happy doing something completely different, ie. not in public life, but that's not what his current set up is like. And I think that a part of him wants the limelight and publicity, which is understandable because that's what he was born into.

That’s a really good point. Harry could have worked to raise awareness of the impact of bereavement. There’s loads he could have done.

I think William's got the child bereavement gig - haven't fact checked but I do remember seeing him talking to a young boy about losing a parent when he was in a visit to a charity.

Though I'm sure there's room for two.

I can understand totally he was annoyed about that, but with his profile he would always have known it was a risk surely?
I'm just wondering why he didn't go down the Air Ambulance route like William did?
Not the same as the Army but William said it was a really fulfilling job.

I think but am happy to be corrected that Harry didn't get his helicopter licence @MrsFinkelstein so couldn't have flown air ambulances like William did. As he isn't a medic either (as nor is W), there wouldn't have been a role for him in that unless as a pilot.

He did get his helicopter pilot licence, yes.

Thanks Silver

It is proven again and again that celebrity couples who fawn over one another in public are usually already on the rocks. It is odd for a 41 year old woman to want to do this in formal situations where she sticks out like a sore thumb. She would not behave in this way if she was respecting protocol or trying to fit in. She was clearly not interested in either of these things and is still disinterested. She only wanted the photo ops and money off the back of the boring, pale, wooden family who work hard to stay relevant and engaged. However, she does not want to be seen as grabby and vulgar (even though she is). That was the extent of her half-in-half-out idea.

It takes two to do public displays of affection.

If Meghan wasn't respecting protocol, neither was Harry, and he was the one that had no excuse for not knowing the protocol.

She definitely initiates it every single time from what I observe. He never did it with his previous girlfriends although their attendance at formal events was more limited.