'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?

Yes they are just taken from the repeated “rumoured to be worth” statements from commentators, I should have caveated that - as details of deals are not always make public.

However we could assume they are roughy in the right ball park as if they were hugely inflated the companies might need to come out to counter in order to prevent their own shareholders / investors were getting twitchy.

And yes these ball park deals are gross not net.

I agree that “content is king”
and these companies will want a significant ROI - but Spotify are getting top ratings to date and I can only assume that HMQ death, funeral, family tensions, books etc will only have increased H&M profile exponentially and therefore their potential reach.

I have no doubt that they will cobble something together RF related to fulfil their contracts now that the gloves are off.

It’s just how sustainable it is to monetise in the longer term or if they want to build on their own separate H&M humanitarian / compassion in action brand to distance themselves from the past and embrace their future. I suspect they will need for commercial reasons to keep a foot in the past.

However we could assume they are roughy in the right ball park as if they were hugely inflated the companies might need to come out to counter in order to prevent their own shareholders / investors were getting twitchy.

Not sure about that. I'm convinced that the "$1 million for a speech' is simply made up. If he could command those fees, then why isn't he doing so?

And are NF really going to pay a 9 figure sum for two people with no relevant experience? For an Invictus Games documentary?

I agree that “content is king”
and these companies will want a significant ROI - but Spotify are getting top ratings to date

It will be interesting to see how the Spotify series goes. The first 2 episodes got very good ratings, but then they featured genuine A listers. The 3rd one, with Mindy Kaling, was much lower. I also read an interview with someone involved in the business who said that given the very large number of people involved in production, she doubted Spotify would make any money from the series and might even sustain a loss.

It’s just how sustainable it is to monetise in the longer term or if they want to build on their own separate H&M humanitarian / compassion in action brand to distance themselves from the past and embrace their future. I suspect they will need for commercial reasons to keep a foot in the past.

I think this is the question. Harry is the son of a king, but has no role to play royal 'business' anymore. Meghan's ex-royal life must now be longer than her life as an actual royal. NF and the likes will want bang for their buck, which means royal 'dirt'. And once they've done that, what is left for the Sussexes to do?

I think lots of the 'MM critical' posters on here have experienced someone like Meghan (or how Meghan comes across) in their own lives, whether family, work, school or university etc. They've seen a version of this story play out in different guises.

Again in full agreement with this. I do think this explains how heightened these threads get too when accusations of bullying and racism are being thrown around so casually, yet for me certainly Meghan reminds me of several people - one a man, who I knew over my working career and in personal relationships whose actions made me feel trapped and unhappy. Yet you absolutely cannot pin them down without tears, victimhood, recriminations and them drawing onlookers into side taking, many of whom haven't experienced that kind of behaviour or who have similar traits and will work with them to put you firmly in the wrong.

Ironically, by attempting to protect Meghan & Harry, the palace may have failed to protect its actual employees.

I think this might well have been the dynamic. I don’t think they were trying to ‘protect’ H&M though more ‘placate’ them - indulging demanding, entitled tantruming toddlers or petulant teens always back fires.

However I think the palace were doing this for H alone way before MM came on the scene and her grandiose and ruthless personality type combined with Harry’s flaws was incendiary and a lot of staff (and family members) got roasted.

Dare I say it, either monetise your children, or divorce and give lots of interviews about ‘my mentally ill husband. I tried so hard to help, but…’

I think that divorce is going to be the more lucrative option of the two for M alone. The Phony, wealthy American kids market is a saturated one and it would be surprising if they had anything worth paying for if the parents output is anything to go by.

It was pretty foolish for them to leave when they did. In the decade until Prince George became an adult, there was a gap in the royal popularity market for the taking. They could have gritted their teeth, subtly established a distance from the family and built up their profile as royals from within the family before becoming irrelevant. They would have brought genuine insight and experience to the table and come from a more mature perspective. Their misjudgment was in failing to realize that the richest pickings can only come from putting in the mileage as a couple. They made a lot of miscalculations in how they conducted Megxit. A combination of misjudgment and sheer bad luck.

I hope they don’t divorce because it would just be so so depressing for him to have bust a gut to do everything right as a husband in this horrible “I couldn’t protect my mother so I will do whatever it takes for my wife” psychological gaping wound he has.

He has supported her desire to go home and in this has been uprooted away from everything and everyone in his own support system. I think he thought they would end up in Canada but when they said “North America”, I realised she wanted to be in California eventually.

It is where she was raised, where she battled to try and get famous, where she can try to be in social circles she wanted to be when she was a struggling actress and last and I DO HOPE least, it has a 50:50 divorce starting point.

Because these personality types are arch manipulators - kissing up and kicking down.

They will have spun their charisma and worked tirelessly to enchant who they need to and are able to keep that mask firmly in place - so that people who are important to their ambitions will never see the other face…….as for someone of no use to them or worse perceived as a threat or who questions their abilities / motivations - the wrath, rage and ugliness is quickly revealed.

But if you’ve seen it once in life you can’t unsee it another time.

There's more than a decade gap between them leaving and George becoming a full-time Royal. Probably closer to a two decade gap.

They left when George was about 7, giving George time to finish school, uni, and some military time that will take him to 27 / 28.

Meanwhile Charles, Ann and Edward will all be getting older and less able to do as many engagements. Or carry on the initiatives that have already been set up like Princes Trust, DoE Awards.

@ VikingHelmet

hit the nail on the head

I suppose that their misevaluation may have been to think 'They need us more than we need them and they will dispose of us in due course anyway so if we leave now, we will not be used'. It was really M's focus on the wonga and the opportunity cost of contributing to an institution which meant nothing to her. H's moment of waking up was presumably hearing this from her and having an escape route mapped out for them. He would never have really taken the initiative in his life as their trajectories are mapped out by a team from birth onwards. In order to replace the men in grey suits, she had to demonize every level of their hierarchy and convince them that there was nothing worthwhile to hold onto for H.

“Also MM was not there or even married or pregnant when these words were said to Harry alone. Harry said the question was asked to him before they were married. This doesn’t make it any less offensive but MM muddied the timeline by suggesting it was said later when she was pregnant with Archie - possibly for greater effect?”

I had no idea that that alleged comment re. Skin colour was made so early on -

I too think the alleged person should be named, as having the person go unchecked means the finger of suspicion could fall on anyone.
That isn’t fair.

Probably a power trip by M& H “
“Give us what we want, or we’ll tell who mentioned future children’s potential skin tone”

It was probably quite an innocent remark musing on how their children would look but it played right into MM's hands unfortunately!

Spot on.
Absolutely correct.
The flirty , honeyed charm that changes to a sour hard face in milliseconds when a” Rival” comes into the room.
MM’s thunderous expression when at the overseas wedding, when Harry chats to a female friend is a classic.
MM is good at sneering expressions, too - Like when with The Queen on the Balcony-
The real show through of the inner nature.

In order to replace the men in grey suits, she had to demonize every level of their hierarchy and convince them that there was nothing worthwhile to hold onto for H.

I expect that was pushing on an open door…

I had no idea that that alleged comment re. Skin colour was made so early on -

Harry said in the Oprah interview that the comment was made was “right at the start of our relationship” when they were being told that “she wasn’t going to get security”. Valentine Low says that Ed Lane Fox moved heaven and earth to get RAVEC to agree to provide Meghan with security as “just” a royal girlfriend, and this took two months. If that account is correct, it was clearly very early on.

As for them leaving when they did, I have wondered whether Meghan had completely failed to appreciate that the huge crowds that had flocked to see her and Harry in the UK and elsewhere weren’t coming just because they were megastars in their own right. Being part of the royal family added immeasurably to their lustre. This would presumably however have been completely outside Meghan’s understanding.

Given her personal background, and the fact that the Sussexes were getting the kind of adulation reserved for Hollywood A-Listers, she surely would have seen that as proof that she and Harry were the superstars, and status would remain with them when they left. And of course they remain popular, but have presumably since learned that being part of the Royals does make a difference.

“Dare I say it, either monetise your children, or divorce and give lots of interviews about ‘my mentally ill husband. I tried so hard to help, but…’”

Harry will definitely be the loser emotionally snd financially in a divorce from MM.

MM has zero loyalty to the RF, and giving interviews about his ( Allegedly) Racist family and how mentally fragile Harry is would be an obvious way to make money for someone with an axe 🪓 to grind.

Monetising children, with Harry off the scene is pure speculation, but is likely.
Selling a spread of the kids in one of those rags like “ Hello” or “OK” or whatever they are these days.

But if you’ve seen it once in life you can’t unsee it another time I know. For years on these threads I've wanted to scream at the ardent admirers, 'Can't you read body language!'
When Meghan is with Harry it is clear that she sees him as subordinate to her. When she is with a co-conspirator like Marcus Anderson she treats him as an equal

Being an actively working Royals would definitely make a difference.

It’s like they are two stones winkled from a Tiara,
Worth much more as part of the Tiara than loose and un-set, without much of a purpose.

A slightly clumsy analogy, but that is how I perceive it.

A pharmacist ( Community pharmacy) said at the time of Catherine, William’s and Harry’s “
“Heads together” Mental health drive was so good, as it hugely de- stigmatised emotional health issues.

They really could have done good in this sphere.
Ditto charities with bereaved children.

But for Meghan, that wouldn’t be “ Glamorous “ enough.

The Reason Diana was so loved was Diana’s genuine care for the underdog- and those who suffered.

Diana had genuine empathy.
The public at large can tell the difference.

I wonder what Archie and Lili will think when they discover their place in the RF . Will they want to be involved ? The cousins ( Zara etc) are close and it looks like the GGC are also growing him friends . Will A and L feel they are missing out especially as they have no relationship with their mother’s side apart from Doria ?

The Reason Diana was so loved was Diana’s genuine care for the underdog- and those who suffered.

Yes, but Diana was also a pro at understanding optics.

I wondered that as well. I know it’s a very long way to fly back and forth but they can afford first class and even a private jet. In a family bereavement, it seems natural for the other parent to scoop up the children while the bereaved one focuses on it. I wondered if she feared leaving H alone in the U.K. with his family.

And of course they remain popular, but have presumably since learned that being part of the Royals does make a difference.

Not sure they remain popular. Their ratings have plummetted in Britain, and even in America, Kate and William are more popular. They have a core of extremely devoted and noisy fans but I think among the general public on both sides of the Atlantic, the 'shine' has worn off them. Their PR seems very contrived and doesn't suggest 'organic' popularity to me.

I guess we'll get more of an idea when the reality show, sorry, 'documentary' drops, but even if it's a ratings success, that wouldn't necessarily indicate that people love them. Tiger King was a huge success after all.

She went through a hard mill to learn though and despite her mistakes and missteps I think people could sense her sincerity about eg landmines.

I read once that she was offered a few really lucrative and glamourous gigs after the breakup, think it was official "face of Dior" and her own chat show in the US. She turned them down, I imagine because she knew it wasn't compatible with William's future role. People pay you, they own part of you.

Diana was not a natural fit for a talk show and I strongly think she knew that! She was aware of her strengths. She was also aristocracy so yes would have been bearing William’s future role in mind.