Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

'Courtiers' by Valentine Low

1000 replies

RandomPenguinHouse · 27/09/2022 10:09

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?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
14
MissMarpleRocks · 30/09/2022 06:42

The book is called ‘Courtiers’. I’d imagine as a pp says it won’t just be about H&M but those are 3 of the 4 excerpts currently released.

A friend has worked with KC on a project & has nothing but good to say about him. Taking a sink off the wall isn’t easy I’d imagine so not sure about the veracity of that.

Me being nosy Wheeled Avenger how did you get an advanced copy? I’m always intrigued by these things.

MarshaMelrose · 30/09/2022 06:43

Rapidtango · 30/09/2022 06:20

TheWheeledAvenger, Stronach denied he said many of the 'revelations' in the News of the World article apnews.com/article/aa8180b0ff552fe0a5bd61afb2b16d0b
It also seems that Piers Morgan and Clive Goodman were involved gawdhelpus.

Ugh. He took photos of Prince Charles bedroom to sell to the NOTW?! What a toad. 😏

LondonWolf · 30/09/2022 06:48

biographer Angela Levin is retweeting the lie that she did not invite some pictured Ragland relatives fromGeorgia to the wedding because she is ashamed they are black: never mind that the said Ragland relatives were uncovered just before the wedding in a genealogical programme that traced the relationship back to Doria's great, great, great, great grandfather from the days of American slavery. Neither Doria nor Meghan, nor even the relatives themselves, were aware of the relationship or had even met, but of course she is slammed for not inviting them.

I saw that and did wonder as it seemed to me we'd have heard about these multiple relatives long before now if they'd really been excluded as was being implied.

PinkTonic · 30/09/2022 06:50

Yes. If you are even a casual royal observer who thinks Meghan's been given an unfair run, you will be bullied off Mumsnet and have all your posts mass reported for false reason

It's clear there are strategies at play here to censor and drive anyone who doesn't hate Meghan. Not to mention all the sockpuppeting and PBPs pushing anti-Meghan agendas

literally the opposite of this is the case. It is absolutely clear there is a strategic and coordinated response to the slightest hint of criticism of her/them.

J0y · 30/09/2022 06:57

Yes you cannot say that she/they have made poor choices/monetised their connections/aired family drama, no, one of her staunch defenders will make a comment, insinuating the racism didn't take long.

Legrandsophie · 30/09/2022 07:05

Yes @PinkTonic

Almost as if someone has put a call out and given everyone a script to go from.

Look, it is not my problem that they support a couple who have spent the last two year selling stories about his famous family.

What I really love though are the double standards. Anything said about Meghan without full evidentiary support is gossip and lies. But anything said about Charles/William/Kate is 100% true- look at them aren’t they bastards.

I don’t think any of them are perfect. But so far only Meghan has been caught lying in a regular basis.

MrsMaxDeWinter · 30/09/2022 07:11

J0y · 30/09/2022 06:57

Yes you cannot say that she/they have made poor choices/monetised their connections/aired family drama, no, one of her staunch defenders will make a comment, insinuating the racism didn't take long.

I am not "insinuating racism". I am stating clearly that racism is at the heart of the negative treatment about her, in the press, in the Royal Family, and on Mumsnet.

Nor am I a "staunch defender". I just really really hate the targeted harassment that Meghan has been subjected to over pages and pages of these Meghan bashing threads since 2018. And there is no question at all that at the bottom of the harassment is race.

Race has been at the heart of how the media treats her, from "straight outta Compton", to how her "exotic DNA" will thicken the Royal blood, the latter said by the Prime minister's sister, and to how Harry was marring into "gangster royalty".

And I am saying, not insinuating, that it is racism that means only Meghan is investigated for alleged bullying when the same bullying allegations are made about her white husband Harry, and when we know that Charles and others have engaged in behaviour that is worse than anything Meghan has done.

Kindly look up the famous Buzzfeed article that shows the stark difference in treatment of Meghan and Kate for doing exactly the same things, from eating avocados, having lily of the valley in their bouquets to touching their pregnancy bumps.

You don't have to accept that the commentary here and elsewhere is rooted in racism, and a particularly sexist and misogynist racism that targets black women at that. But that you don't accept it does not mean it's not there.

MrsMaxDeWinter · 30/09/2022 07:22

@Legrandsophie

Almost as if someone has put a call out and given everyone a script to go from.

This is the weird thing. You are perfectly happy to accept the views of the Meghan bashers without stating that its is coordinated, but the minute three or four posters on a thread of almost 900 posts post a counter view, you believe it is coordinated? Why do you want only Meghan bashing posts?

Look, it is not my problem that they support a couple who have spent the last two year selling stories about his famous family.

Meghan and Harry were not paid to appear on OW. And they have not been paid for any story about the RF. The only two projects that I know, from the media, that they sold are the books: Meghan wrote a book inspired by Harry and Archie, and Harry has an upcoming memoir about his life.

Even if I accept that they have spent two years selling stories about the Royal family, is it not hypocritical for you to criticise this given that you are here, lapping up gossip in a book about the same family?

Why do Valentine Low, Angela Levin, etc, have a greater right to sell stories about the Royal Family than people who have actually lived in that family? Do you honestly not see the hypocrisy? Others can make money off Harry and Meghan's lives, but they can't make money out of their own lives?

Ohnonevermind · 30/09/2022 07:23

The Tom Bowyer book and now tnis book on courtiers give a great insight into Meghan Markle.

it’s amazing the pass some posters give on here to really awful behaviour, and use racism to deflect

I can imagine her vision board of her 5 year strategy has gone tits up. She thought she’d be a a+star, extremely rich, democratic contender, humanitarian

And she’s none of those things. But she has two children, a husband who adores her, a mansion and and two palm trees whose roots are entwined like her love for Harry

it will be interesting to read Harry’s book, but we’ve already got a good grip on MM’s real personally, complicated as it is

LondonWolf · 30/09/2022 07:25

I am not "insinuating racism". I am stating clearly that racism is at the heart of the negative treatment about her, in the press, in the Royal Family, and on Mumsnet.

And I will state clearly that racism is not a factor in my criticism of Meghan. I think it is important to be very clear against and reject these lazy accusations of racism but that is all I will say as I believe this thread is now being purposely derailed.

Serenster · 30/09/2022 07:28

Stronach revealed in an interview with News of the World that Charles was angry; he claimed the prince had outbursts that once required him to hide in a closet in fear.

Well, at least we know where you’re going wrong, now. Pro tip: the News of the World is not, and never has been a reliable source.

As for the link to the Buzzfeed article, funny why it never showed front pages about Kate like those illustrated below (a tint sample of what’s out there). Why, I wonder? I guess it is awkward when the truth and your narrative aren’t aligned.

'Courtiers' by Valentine Low
'Courtiers' by Valentine Low
'Courtiers' by Valentine Low
SallyLockheart · 30/09/2022 07:31

interesting point Oh.

Kate has often been accused of being bland, and to some extent, that is true - she has been William's girlfriend and then wife for nearly 20 years and we don't know that much about her really. And that is very much following the ethos of the Queen.

Meghan, on the other hand, met Harry in 2016, engaged in 2017, married in 2018, left for canada in 2019, moved to usa in 2020 and has been busy with articles and interviews etc ever since. Add in law suits, and there is plenty to consider and be interested in and as Oh said, we appear to have got a good insight into her personality from her own words and those of people who have worked for her.

Serenster · 30/09/2022 07:34

Meghan and Harry were not paid to appear on OW. And they have not been paid for any story about the RF.

Given Meghan and Harry come across to me very strongly as a couple who know the cost of everything, but the value of nothing, I find it very hard to believe there was not some exchange of value for their media deals. Given that recent accounts have suggested that they had reached an exclusive deal with Gayle King over Archie’s birth, and had agreed to do a joint interview with Oprah before their trip to South Africa meaning they insisted that the documentary of their trip to South Africa could only show footage of them speaking separately - only a fool would give up image rights like that without compensation. And they are clearly not fools.

Ohnonevermind · 30/09/2022 07:36

@SallyLockheart

Meghan’s behaviour just isn’t very regal.
her personality isn’t suited to a royal role.
she’s better off in California, far away from the royal family.

MrsMaxDeWinter · 30/09/2022 07:40

@Ohnonevermind

It’s amazing the pass some posters give on here to really awful behaviour, and use racism to deflect

I have not seen any really awful behaviour. I don't believe that Tom Bower's speculative book is accurate, given, as he acknowledges himself, he spoke mainly to people who do not like Meghan. There have also been many factual inaccuracies in the book, and he has admitted that his reason for writing the book was to push back against the OW interview.

Also, if you believeTom Bower, then you also believe that the Queen muttered angrily about Meghan at the funeral of her husband of many years, but this was countered strongly by the Palace. It means you also believe Camilla was the royal racist who commented on Archie's looks, which has also been countered strongly by the Palace.

I have already explained above why I do not take Courtiers at face value.

And the racism is not a deflection. Meghan has been and continues to be subject to negative commentary rooted in racism and misogynoir. The "angry back woman" trope, is one that has been used against black women in the past, particularly by white women.

There is even a well known concept called "white fragility" that explores unconscious bias against black people, and the anger when this bias is challenged. This paragraph from, a review of the book White Fragility by Robin DiAngelo, is a perfect summary of what happens on Mumsnet when race is mentioned in relation to Meghan Markle:

"White people are sensationally, histrionically bad at discussing racism. Like waves on sand, their reactions form predictable patterns: they will insist that they “were taught to treat everyone the same,” that they are “color-blind,” that they “don’t care if you are pink, purple, or polka-dotted.” They will point to friends and family members of color, a history of civil-rights activism, or a more “salient” issue, such as class or gender. They will shout and bluster. They will cry. In 2011, DiAngelo coined the term “white fragility” to describe the disbelieving defensiveness that white people exhibit when their ideas about race and racism are challenged—and particularly when they feel implicated."

From The New Yorker

www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/a-sociologist-examines-the-white-fragility-that-prevents-white-americans-from-confronting-racism

WinnieTheW0rm · 30/09/2022 07:44

when we know that Charles and others have engaged in behaviour that is worse than anything Meghan has done

Based on the extracts that are the subject of the thread, I'm not sure they have. Charles does not come out of it well at all. But isolated flare ups do not strike me as bad as being called every ten minutes during a day off.

And I expect much the same things would be said about Sussexes as Charles, were it not for the far higher staff turnover

DuchessOfPort · 30/09/2022 07:45

Ken Stronach seems to think what he said to the NOTW bears no resemblance to what they published. He stole photos. Not a reliable chap. And NOTW not exactly reliable either.

www.independent.co.uk/news/prince-silences-valet-with-court-injunction-1568939.html?amp

MrsMaxDeWinter · 30/09/2022 07:49

Serenster · 30/09/2022 07:34

Meghan and Harry were not paid to appear on OW. And they have not been paid for any story about the RF.

Given Meghan and Harry come across to me very strongly as a couple who know the cost of everything, but the value of nothing, I find it very hard to believe there was not some exchange of value for their media deals. Given that recent accounts have suggested that they had reached an exclusive deal with Gayle King over Archie’s birth, and had agreed to do a joint interview with Oprah before their trip to South Africa meaning they insisted that the documentary of their trip to South Africa could only show footage of them speaking separately - only a fool would give up image rights like that without compensation. And they are clearly not fools.

I think the exclusive deals with Gayle and Oprah were less about money, which they did not receive, than they were about their understandable desire to control their own narrative. By the time Archie was born, it was clear the media was anti-Sussex, and my understanding is that Harry in particular believed staff like Jason Knauf and others were working against his interests. Also, when journalists picture your new-bornchild as a chimp, I imagine you would want to talk about that child to those you trust.

That said, you have taken that quote out of a longer post, and I would appreciate your thoughts on this, as it appears you have avoided it:

Why do Valentine Low, Angela Levin, etc, have a greater right to sell stories about the Royal Family than people who have actually lived in that family? Do you honestly not see the hypocrisy? Others can make money off Harry and Meghan's lives, but they can't make money out of their own lives?

WinnieTheW0rm · 30/09/2022 07:54

Just a gentle reminder that this thread is about the Valentine Low extracts.

Not about any and every book about any one of the people mentioned in it.

It's a bit of a distraction to say something along the lines of"there are accounts that are not well sourced" when this one, about the courtiers, names them.

Ed Lane-Fox for example was loyal. He said nothing about the Sussexes attitudes or personalities, and he stayed for the duration of his initial contract. But what he did (major negotiations with an expert government board) achieved unprecedented results (security before an engagement). And the later Sussex comments were just counterpointed.

Unfortunately for Harry (whose PS this was and who was the one who made the comments) the obvious conclusion is not favourable

DuchessOfPort · 30/09/2022 07:55

Referring to to Rachel Johnson as “the prime minister’s sister” is a bit disingenuous - makes her sound much more important than she is - Boris Johnson wasn't PM at the time of the article. Nor is he now of course. And The Compton article was written by 2 Americans.

MrsMaxDeWinter · 30/09/2022 07:58

LondonWolf · 30/09/2022 07:25

I am not "insinuating racism". I am stating clearly that racism is at the heart of the negative treatment about her, in the press, in the Royal Family, and on Mumsnet.

And I will state clearly that racism is not a factor in my criticism of Meghan. I think it is important to be very clear against and reject these lazy accusations of racism but that is all I will say as I believe this thread is now being purposely derailed.

The person who started this thread @RandomPenguinHouse assured me a few posts above that her intention was not to bash Meghan. She told me all posts were welcome, and also said that as it is a public forum, discussions inevitably stray away from the topic of discussion.

In te same way that posters have written about H and M's impending divorce, has she will monetise the children etc, things they think are true, I also have posted about something that I think is true, including the racism underpinning all this speculation.

As for whether you are racist, @LondonWolf I don't know you and have not said you, specifically, are a racist. That said, in the same way that you and other posters here seem free to speculate about what Meghan thinks, and her motives for doing pretty much anything, you can surely appreciate that others too can speculate on your motives based on your posts?

WinnieTheW0rm · 30/09/2022 08:01

None of those things feature in the Valentine Low extracts though.

He is looking at what courtiers say, established as closely as possible

Ohnonevermind · 30/09/2022 08:03

My issue with Meghan has always been the lying, that’s one root of my issue with her.

She’s also a bully, once you’ve met someone like her and faced their treatment, you recognise it. It appears in flashes as she’s not able to hide it all the time so you see it.

MrsMaxDeWinter · 30/09/2022 08:07

DuchessOfPort · 30/09/2022 07:55

Referring to to Rachel Johnson as “the prime minister’s sister” is a bit disingenuous - makes her sound much more important than she is - Boris Johnson wasn't PM at the time of the article. Nor is he now of course. And The Compton article was written by 2 Americans.

@DuchessOfPort You are right I had forgotten her first name, but yes, it was Rachel Johnson. And the Compton article was published in the Daily Mail, a UK publication.

@WinnieTheW0rm I mentioned Tom Bower in response to someone who had already done so. As for Courtiers, I have already explained why I believe it is discredited. No one has responded at all to my query as to why, if the allegations of bullying are against both Harry and Meghan, it is only Meghan who received formal complaints, why these allegations only surfaced just before the OW interview, when the prevailing narrative had been that the staff were devastated and in tears when they left, and the Sussexes had had a teary farewell lunch for their staff.

Serenster · 30/09/2022 08:11

Why do Valentine Low, Angela Levin, etc, have a greater right to sell stories about the Royal Family than people who have actually lived in that family? Do you honestly not see the hypocrisy? Others can make money off Harry and Meghan's lives, but they can't make money out of their own lives?

From a straightforward consideration of economics and legal rights, they do of course have the right to make money from whatever means are legally open to them.

We don’t live in a vacuum however, and so Harry and Meghan’s life in the Royal Family was all conducted in a context that would have been well understood by them. That, given the huge media interest in all aspects of the senior Royal lives, privacy and loyalty were highly valued. That they were trusted with a great deal of confidential and private information because they were members of a close family and were taken to understand that along with this trust came the responsibility to respect their family and keep that trust.

No-one has stopped them from saying anything, you’ll note - as Meghan famously just said - she hasn’t signed anything. She has her diary of her time in the Royal Family - she can say anything, she tells us. And they both know that the Palace is unlikely to get into an undignified wrangle with them because the Palace has its own image to consider. And they can rely - or thought they could rely - on the fact that the Palace staff were gagged and couldn’t refute their stories (though, as we now know, those NDAs aren’t quite as powerful as the couple may have expected).

Anywhere - where we get to is that Meghan and Harry have taken several opportunities to air the royal family’s internal goings on in public. And it’s also very likely those accounts have been embroidered, spun, and in some cases perhaps outright made up to support Meghan and Harry’s narrative. They have smeared private individuals by name, knowing they can’t fight back. They have inserted barbs into most of their media activities since leaving. And it seems they intend to ramp this up.

No-one is stopping them doing that, as I said. What they, or anyone else, doesn’t get to do however is insist that people don’t form their own opinions of their behaviour. Don’t judge them for selling out their family’s trust to secure their own financial future. Don’t form a poor opinion of them because they are abusing their position as formerly loved family members with access to everything and everyone to now use that position or their personal profit. Don’t think the Royal Family’s now freezing them out utterly is exactly the treatment their behaviour has made inevitable. Let’s face it, if the Palace had thought this was on the cards they would have been on the shortest of leashes from the very beginning.

So I don’t think their situation is remotely comparable to the external parties who pull together what they can from open source information, or those with inside knowledge who they hey can persuade to talk to them. They are not breaching any personal obligations themselves in doin so, unlike Meghan and Harry. They are not the ones demonstrating a serious lack of a moral compass.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.