Page 38 | 'Courtiers' by Valentine Low

RandomPenguinHouse · 2022-09-27T09:09:21+00:00

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.^ https://www.foyles.co.uk/witem/biography/courtiers,valentine-low-9781472290908 Anyone else thinking of buying this?

SilverLiningPlaybook · 30/09/2022 09:02

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.

Equally brilliant. Lots of very articulate posts since last night. So enjoying this discussion.

Gilmorehill · 30/09/2022 09:03

MrsMaxDeWinter · 30/09/2022 08:39

@Maireas thanks so much for the kind words, and yes, it was Danny Baker, and then it made the papers, but I was putting myself in the frame of mind of H and M who seem to have a siege mentality about the media: "if our baby is being mocked as a chimp, we may as well talk only to those we trust" etc. etc.

The image of a chimpanzee didn’t make the papers. It was shared by Danny Baker, there was an immediate uproar and he lost his job.

Maireas · 30/09/2022 09:05

Gilmorehill · 30/09/2022 09:03

The image of a chimpanzee didn’t make the papers. It was shared by Danny Baker, there was an immediate uproar and he lost his job.

Show quote history

True. Yet time and again I've read that the British press portrayed the baby as a chimp.

Ohnonevermind · 30/09/2022 09:05

@Serenster

great post

LaMarschallin · 30/09/2022 09:06

oakleaffy

Assume the jewellery went down the plug hole, in which case a plumber would need to be called to dissect the U bend.

I have to say that's what I thought must have happened.
Charles is unlikely to be staying somewhere with a sink half hanging off and it's got to be pretty much impossible to rip a basin off the wall with your bare hands.
Maybe he had it ripped/taken out by a plumber; probably worth it for a good piece of jewellery.

MissMarpleRocks · 30/09/2022 09:08

Gilmorehill · 30/09/2022 09:03

The image of a chimpanzee didn’t make the papers. It was shared by Danny Baker, there was an immediate uproar and he lost his job.

Show quote history

And rightly so that he lost his job.

Serenster · 30/09/2022 09:09

I think that Jason Knauf's role must have been particularly angering, especially as he is widely believed to be close to the person who leaked their plans to Dan Wootton at the Sun

The focus on Jason Knauf as the moustache-twirling villain of the piece (not by you, Mrs MaxDeWinter - by the way, I have username envy! - but many others) always interests me.

Tom Bower took this point on directly in Revenge - he said that in January 2020 Harry was obsessed about “malicious forces in London” leaking his secrets to Dan Wootton and “could not imagine that Wootton’s source might be one of the Sussexes many advisors in Los Angeles and Canada”. Carefully worded there!

Also, when you look at Jason Knauf’s own behaviour, he’s one of the few people in this story who have done exactly what you would expect someone with a strong sense of integrity to do. When he reached the view that Meghan’s conduct towards some of her staff was unacceptable he filed an official complaint and then shortly afterwards left. This is exactly the course of action that people holding in responsible jobs in an organisation (say, a Compliance Officer in a Bank) are expected to do when they identify wrongdoing - report it, and then if nothing happens, you have to leave.

Then when he sees Meghan’s lawsuit against ANL and realises that she and Omid Scobie are lying to the to the court about whether or not there was any collaboration on Finding Freedom, he comes forward to offer his own relevant evidence on the point. Again, this is something he should be commended for - but it cast Meghan in an unflattering light, so he must be a villain.

Both of these, interestingly, as the acts of someone with a strong sense of integrity, not a snake in the grass, as he’s so often painted. Of course he may have been leaking to the press as well - I have no knowledge of that! But Harry certainly knew he’d filed the compliant against Meghan at the time (we are told Harry tried to persuade him not to do so) so I suppose from them on they would have seen him as someone who was always acting against them, no matter whether that true or not (perhaps even a “malicious force” 😏)

WinnieTheW0rm · 30/09/2022 09:14

Maireas · 30/09/2022 09:05

True. Yet time and again I've read that the British press portrayed the baby as a chimp.

Show quote history

Yes, because people ignorantly repeat it.

It was not representative, and was rightly much reviled

MrsMaxDeWinter · 30/09/2022 09:16

Rapidtango · 30/09/2022 08:53

Also remembering that Harry and Megham purportedly moved to the US to escape hounding by media, but all they've done since their 'escape', is feed the media maw. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to act as they are doing and then complain of being vilified. And let's face it, without the Royal family connection, no-one would be interested in them AT ALL - they'd be Hazzer and Megs, a lot poorer financially, the neighbours from down the street - she's an actress and he's, well, not sure what he is - but he takes the kids to school and has a chat at the school gates.

@Rapidtango this is exactly the problem with the commentary about these two. You are given the impression that they saturate the media by feeding it, but if you count the number of times they have actually spoken directly to the press or in public, it is probably less than 10 times IN TOTAL since they left, and I mean both of them.

Oprah Winfrey (Both)
The Me You can't See (Harry)
James Corbyn Interview (Harry)
The Ellen Show (Meghan)
Roya Nikkah (Harry)
The Cut (Meghan)

Public speaking events include

Archewell Holiday Podcast (Both)
Three Archetype Podcasts (Meghan)
UN address (Harry)
Invictus Games Opening (Both)
Invictus Games Dusseldorf (Harry)
One Young World (Meghan)

They have been seen in public at the above events, at polo games at home, at the Jubilee and the Funeral where Harry issued two statements.

I may have missed one or two so please correct me, but this all there has been in three years. And yet each of these interviews, events, and appearances generates pages and pages of commentary and articles, as many as 18 a day in some instances.

SmileyFaces12 · 30/09/2022 09:18

@Serenster
Same here - very much enjoying reading such well articulated posts.

EdithWeston · 30/09/2022 09:24

@MrsMaxDeWinter

That misses out the announcements about what they will be doing (their various media deals), book launches, and everything concerning their court cases.

Plus doesn't allow for pandemic hiatus in events. They were spectacularly unlucky with timing

I see it as really rather a lot of activity though, in the circumstances

MrsMaxDeWinter · 30/09/2022 09:25

Serenster · 30/09/2022 09:09

I think that Jason Knauf's role must have been particularly angering, especially as he is widely believed to be close to the person who leaked their plans to Dan Wootton at the Sun

The focus on Jason Knauf as the moustache-twirling villain of the piece (not by you, Mrs MaxDeWinter - by the way, I have username envy! - but many others) always interests me.

Tom Bower took this point on directly in Revenge - he said that in January 2020 Harry was obsessed about “malicious forces in London” leaking his secrets to Dan Wootton and “could not imagine that Wootton’s source might be one of the Sussexes many advisors in Los Angeles and Canada”. Carefully worded there!

Also, when you look at Jason Knauf’s own behaviour, he’s one of the few people in this story who have done exactly what you would expect someone with a strong sense of integrity to do. When he reached the view that Meghan’s conduct towards some of her staff was unacceptable he filed an official complaint and then shortly afterwards left. This is exactly the course of action that people holding in responsible jobs in an organisation (say, a Compliance Officer in a Bank) are expected to do when they identify wrongdoing - report it, and then if nothing happens, you have to leave.

Then when he sees Meghan’s lawsuit against ANL and realises that she and Omid Scobie are lying to the to the court about whether or not there was any collaboration on Finding Freedom, he comes forward to offer his own relevant evidence on the point. Again, this is something he should be commended for - but it cast Meghan in an unflattering light, so he must be a villain.

Both of these, interestingly, as the acts of someone with a strong sense of integrity, not a snake in the grass, as he’s so often painted. Of course he may have been leaking to the press as well - I have no knowledge of that! But Harry certainly knew he’d filed the compliant against Meghan at the time (we are told Harry tried to persuade him not to do so) so I suppose from them on they would have seen him as someone who was always acting against them, no matter whether that true or not (perhaps even a “malicious force” 😏)

I don't dispute your interpretation as narrated by Tom Bower.

I am merely speaking to the issue of loyalty: I believe Harry believes his brother and wife were disloyal to him: William by not being supportive enough, Kate by not countering the nasty story about making M cry, and them both continuing to work with Jason after Jason did the two things you report above.

If I believed that bullying allegations against my wife were malicious, I would definitely not believe that the person who filed them was acting with integrity. Similarly, the court case actions could be taken the way you did, but considering that the person who wrote to court was also the person who was part of the letter writing strategy in the first place, I would definitely believe I had been set up. If my brother then continued to work with this person, I would believe that he has no loyalty to me, so I owe none to him, and I would feel the need to explain myself.

I can enter into Harry's mind and understand his feelings while also understanding where he and Meghan went wrong.

Ohnonevermind · 30/09/2022 09:27

@MrsMaxDeWinter

But we’ve also had their PR running stories to keep them in the media such as they’re going to Obama’s party, they’re not going to Obama’s party, they’re giving out an academy award, they’re going to the MET ball, they’re running for politics,

These stories originated in the US, generated by sunshine Sachs at a large cost to keep them relevant. How else do you think they tan up such a large bill

you’ve also forgotten the birthday announcement of the 40:40 which has gone very quiet with Harry at the window (was he juggling in that one)

Rapidtango · 30/09/2022 09:32

'Oprah Winfrey (Both)
The Me You can't See (Harry)
James Corbyn Interview (Harry)
The Ellen Show (Meghan)
Roya Nikkah (Harry)
The Cut (Meghan)'

That strikes me as a fairly comprehensive dose of speaking to the press (not to mention the SA tour) - I mean, Oprah, James Corden, Ellen - gimme a break, they couldn't be more high profile media wise is they wanted!

Original poster

RandomPenguinHouse · 30/09/2022 09:32

Why is there always such a flurry of posts in the early hours of the morning?! So much to say but I’m going into a meeting shortly. By the time I’m ready to post this will be probably be full…

OP posts:

Serenster · 30/09/2022 09:34

I can enter into Harry's mind and understand his feelings while also understanding where he and Meghan went wrong.

I can too, which is why I said I understand that Harry saw Jason Knauf as disloyal, and would have considerable animus against him following the complaint.

The other point to note here is how people deal with knowing they are not always in the right. The article that Valentine Low wrote last year had some information that I don’t think was included in the Courtiers extracts (I know they were edited for theTimes, so it might be back in the book when published) - that at first Harry went around apologising for Meghan’s actions, and tried to smooth ruffled feathers. So initially he clearly had some understanding that her behaviour needed to be apologised for.

As their personal experiences got worse and worse though, this changed and Harry and Meghan, we are told, both behaved badly. This doesn’t entirely surprise me, I expect by this stage they will have convinced themselves that everyone was against them, it was just themselves against the world, and if you’re not for us you’re against us. No one ever casts themselves as the baddies in their own mind! In their mind everything they did would have been justified and reasonable, I am sure. Denial is a powerful mental force, and people often believe that about their actions even when objectively they are anything but.

MrsMaxDeWinter · 30/09/2022 09:34

Rapidtango · 30/09/2022 09:32

'Oprah Winfrey (Both)
The Me You can't See (Harry)
James Corbyn Interview (Harry)
The Ellen Show (Meghan)
Roya Nikkah (Harry)
The Cut (Meghan)'

That strikes me as a fairly comprehensive dose of speaking to the press (not to mention the SA tour) - I mean, Oprah, James Corden, Ellen - gimme a break, they couldn't be more high profile media wise is they wanted!

This is 6 interviews in three years.

And the SA tour was when they were part of the Royal Family. You said since they left, so am not sure why you want to include events they did before they left?

Ohnonevermind · 30/09/2022 09:35

If Meghan hadn’t lied to the court, she couldn’t have been shown to be a liar. That’s not on Jason Knauff

I can see Harry following the train of thought you outlined, especially if he was being encouraged to think it by someone in his ear feeding him lies and bile in his ear constantly while isolating him.

EdithWeston · 30/09/2022 09:37

Interviews are not their only media engagement though, are they?

And it's not a normal 3 years either because of covid there were long stretches when no interviews were happening

Ohnonevermind · 30/09/2022 09:38

They both fed each other bull, Harry told Meghan she would be the new Diana, and Meghan told Harry that all the mean people in the Palace were preventing her from fulfilling this destiny as they were all jealous, racist or both.

Readinginthesun · 30/09/2022 09:40

MrsMaxDeWinter · 30/09/2022 09:00

I agree with you that ignoring trolling often works, and has worked for other members of the family. But H and M have made it a mission to take on the media, "countering disinformation" is one of the things they sponsor in their philanthropy work. Their communication strategy appears to be threefold:

*Suing the papers where winning is guaranteed (so they sued over the privacy matter as there was an incontestable breach, or over the Harry ignored the military story which was demonstrably false) but they are not foolish enough to sue over books and stories based on "unnamed sources" eg Tom Bower's book.

*Speaking for themselves through their own statements and well placed interviews.

*Ignoring the more batshit elements, and simply countering these without directly countering them e.g, Meghan talking about her long friendship with Serena was much more effective than suing Bower for saying they were acquaintances.

I wish they would do more of the last than the first two. That said, even if they were to remain quiet for the rest of their lives, the tabloids are clearly out for blood. The Queen's funeral was a perfect example of how even when they maintained a low profile, the tabloids still put them front and centre, and then blamed the funeral for "making it about them"!

Show quote history

I can understand not suing Tom Bower who seemed to rely on unnamed sources however Valentine Low has specifically named people so would H and M not feel more confident suing him ?
Also , I am not aware of any of those named by VL coming out to deny anything.

MrsMaxDeWinter · 30/09/2022 09:40

RandomPenguinHouse · 30/09/2022 09:32

Why is there always such a flurry of posts in the early hours of the morning?! So much to say but I’m going into a meeting shortly. By the time I’m ready to post this will be probably be full…

@RandomPenguinHouse There is a flurry of posts this early because, as has been alleged, each person posting here and being objective about Meghan is actually Meghan, and because, as alluded to above, all of us different Meghans are posting on Pacific Standard time.

But if the thread fills up, no fear, it is a Mumsnet Law that for as a long as Meghan breathes (oops, I mean for as long as I and the other Meghans on this thread breathe) there well be a bashing thread, so you or another poster can just start another, with an innocent sounding topic of course!

Rapidtango · 30/09/2022 09:41

Okeydoke, discount the SA interview, but the above over three years, long form interviews. You must admit that

They wouldn't have had the platform without the RF connection
They wanted to escape from the Royal family
They wanted to escape from media attention
They are cashing in on the relationship - even if they weren't paid for the actual interviews, there will be monetary advantage to be gained by doing the interviews, whether that's through charitable donations, the increased sales of their books and media output, the amount they're paid for public speaking engagements.

And of course there is plenty of other media coverage of them, down to their own actions.

Croque · 30/09/2022 09:42

I don't think the blame can be spread equally when H is the psychologically vulnerable, mentally challenged one who has lived a completely sheltered life before meeting M. He is very much her premier victim.

Original poster

RandomPenguinHouse · 30/09/2022 09:42

TheWheeledAvenger · 30/09/2022 02:53

Why would I read excerpts when I have the whole book?

I haven't read any excerpts.

Maybe you should wait until you've read the actual book.

(Though as it happens, I checked and the extracts DO say that Charles regularly throws things, which is physical abuse IMO. Meghan has been trashed here over and over again over a fake story invented by someone on Twitter which was picked up by an Australian tabloid, a story not even the British tabloids will touch, about Meghan throwing a cup of tea. If it's abusive for Meghan to throw things then it's abusive for Charles to throw things.)

The video I linked which everyone is pretending doesn't exist is the source for the incident where Charles butler accused Charles of physically attacking and choking him.

Oh and this is a FIRST HAND ACCOUNT from Charles' former butler himself, directly. Not a second or third hand source like Low claiming to have heard something. Charles actual former butler gave a personal interview where he personally and directly accused Charles of physical assault.

www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/prince-charles-once-allegedly-choked-a-staff-member-and-ripped-a-sink-out-of-the-wall-in-anger.html/

www.thedailybeast.com/the-secrets-of-the-royal-servants

www.spokesman.com/stories/1995/jan/17/once-more-into-breach-of-royal-confidentiality/

Show quote history

But you clearly haven’t read the whole book 😂

Because you said all the book says about the bullying allegations against Meghan are that she occasionally sent an early email and made one snarky comment. This is not true. The details in the excerpts prove this- excerpts which are obviously in the book you’ve claimed to read.

The sending early 5am emails detail was something in the press years ago. This book has much, much more to say. Yet YOU are denying this despite having read it.

And you’re wanting us to believe the whole book actually contains fewer accounts then the excerpts. 😂😂😂

OP posts: