‘Courtiers’ 2

[RandomPenguinHouse]

The last thread filled up during a particularly chatty morning.

Harry talked about them being “trapped” and he wasn’t wrong, though William had to deny it.

But you don't know whether he's wrong or not. Harry has said from his early 20s that he and William wouldn't be working in the way that their grandmother and father did and would be doing things differently. But while Harry was out being angry and getting trashed to avoid dealing with his emotions, despite advice from his brother, William was settled with a growing family, having in-laws that gave him emotional security and establishing a relationship with his family as he was being slowly inducted in the Royal establishment. Prince Charles always took his role seriously and worked towards aims that he felt strongly about. He has never seemed trapped in his role. Maybe Prince William has grown to appreciate what he can offer to the role, maybe he's realised that the queen and his father actually work hard for good reason and to good effect.

Maybe Harry was wrong and William denied it because it isn't true. Or, maybe, no longer true.

But really, wouldn't it be better if Harry kept his gob shut and didn't make statements on other people's behalf?

Yes, just imagine if William gave an equivalent interview and said, “Yes… it’s hard for Harry because he desperately wants to be king, but knows he never will” or similar.

Actually, I can’t even imagine it because William would never be so indiscreet.

@HeddaGarbled

“The abuse and coercive control is exercised by us, given voice by and whipped up by the media.”

I do agree with that. Although I would add that, in my opinion, the abuse and coercive control, practiced here and by the media, is ultimately in service to the dominant white patriarchal society we live in and it disappoints me that when we get a huge forum of women together they spend time praising one woman and denouncing another (and the women are interchangeable here). Instead of examining why members of a huge woman’s forum are doing this, and who it ultimately serves, and how can we change the conversation to something that uplifts and empowers women rather than tearing at them to bring them down.

As you have mentioned, men are subject to control too. Just not as much as women.

@Redfrangipani some of us try to examine it occasionally.

There is strength in silence.

Wasn't she called the Degree Wife by some of her family because it was predicted her marriage would last three years? Attitudes like that would have filtered down to her staff.

@MrsMaxDeWinter

But Harry was mad about her, ‘what Meghan wants, Meghan gets’ meant that Harry expected staff to do what she wanted ?

Now that you have mentioned me, tell me, @Ohnonevermind , why was it that it was only Meghan who faced a formal compliant and not Harry as well.

Why was it the biracial outsider, and not the white insider who, from all you are posting here, was also a bully? And why where the bullying allegations against Meghan published by Valentine Low a week or so before the Oprah interview?

the emails from Jason Knauf - an American - makes it quite clear that the behaviour of the Duchess was causing the most concern - targeted belittling of female staff, one after the other, behaviour on the overseas tour which caused JF to be concerned Sam Cohen would walk from the role due to "difficult" behaviour.

Bullying doesn't have to be physical harm or one incident, it can be a relentless series of micro-aggressions, put downs, beratings.

Nobody on this forum knows the ins and outs of what happens but it very much sounds as if they were both terrible to work for but Harry facilitated Meghan's behaviour in that she could do no wrong. They always had to be brave victims fighting the injustice of the palace machine

@MrsMaxDeWinter

i would have to wait until the book comes out to read the full thing rather than extracts but she seems to be the one doing the shouting ?

I said that he wanted everyone to do what she wanted, but she seemed fo be the one doing the actual shouting for example when free gifts were sent back in line with RF policy.

And why where the bullying allegations against Meghan published by Valentine Low a week or so before the Oprah interview?

VL was clear about that at the time - their former staff were deeply unhappy that she was going to go ahead on Oprah and paint such a skewed picture of her time in the Royal family, and wanted their stories heard too, so at least there was some balance.

Andrew, a white insider (and a wanker) is certainly being called a bully among other things.

Harry reportedly had a comparatively good relationship with his team prior to Meghan’s arrival.

. Her racial heritage has nothing to do with it in my view but her American attitude probably does. We don’t work the same way as Americans or communicate like them. I agree with pp, she had never been in charge before either so had no idea that in a working environment in the UK, you’re supposed to treat subordinates with respect, and work with them, not just harangue them out of hours just to satisfy your ire.

Andrew has been surrounded by other royals who had good manners and hardworking with their staff all his life (HMQ for example) and did not follow her example. He’s a git.

And yet Andrew, the "git", nor Charles, nor Margaret, nor anyone else faced formal complaints of bullying that were published at a very convenient time as a form of preemptive attack.

It's all very revealing.

There is nothing that any of you can say that will ever convince me that this was anything other than a smear campaign. Particularly as this is a family that for years assigned black staff to the kitchens, and to this day, remains exempt from race discrimination legislation.

🤔Ok then, you're in!

If no can say anything to convince you, then no point engaging really!

Why do you and others talk about the role of black people many years ago and how poorly they were treated ? The good thing is that no longer happens . Times change . Language changes - words used by my grandparents’ generation would ( hopefully) no longer be tolerated . MM was welcomed and supported but multiple sources are repeating examples of bullying behaviour but according to you it is all racist ?
No one is saying that Andrew etc were anything other than difficult at times . He is an obnoxious prat but the fact remains that within the Royal Household staff tend to stay loyal to their bosses for years. Why ? Yet M and H’s staff have been left traumatised .

Indeed. Best to move the discussion on

I like that new portrait which has been released of KC, QC, P&POW.

Yes I do too . A definite message about the future where W and C will be alongside C and C

I saw the portrait too. They all look lovely, despite it being a hard time.

The new Fab Four

I loved that photo too - they look like a real team who will back each other up.

The Mirror has got extracts about Prince Andrew and they are damning

Anecdotes of rude and self-centred conduct, plus an assessment that he became "boorish" at about the time of the end of his marriage and the end of his Navy career "His horizons in life reduced and his hobbies rarely drifted past golf, videos and women"

He was apparently "dreadful" and "brusque to the point of rude"but even those criticising his manner said he put real effort into his work (eg as trade envoy),and some staff remained loyal and praised his leadership

M (plus her baggage) chose to marry H (with all his well publicized baggage) because there was rather a lot in it for her. It was obvious that H could have easily found somebody more compatible but as a waning star which had never risen very high in the celebrity world, would she get another chance to marry somebody from such a wealthy and influential background? She knew that it was a one-off chance regardless of the obvious difficulties it would create for everybody else.

I never realised until recently that it was not such a whirlwind romance but an engagement following two years of courtship during which time they had experienced a battle with the press and with royal security. She had stayed on the royal estate, met his family many times. Her friendship with Eugenie predated this relationship.
If she was already bullying staff six months before they were even engaged then it is obvious that she had fully sized up the role which came in exchange for all the title, designer goodies, palatial homes and publicity.

It is dishonest to state that she never knew what she was getting herself into. It was a calculated decision she took because the benefits were attractive. Her way of suppressing the critics and doubters was to grab the power and put them in their place.

I wish that the RF had not made any major concessions for her in the beginning. They should have honestly told her that 'This is the security available, this is the likely level of press scrutiny. There is a dull job attached to the privileges and the title. These are the rules. You cannot change them, we don't want to know. You cannot merch. You can't have a £30m white wedding. You need to be polite towards staff. Take all of it graciously or let it go'. Not many of the difficulties emerged later on.

There was definitely an expectations mismanagement on both sides which left her expecting special treatment and special concessions. When this never materialised to her satisfaction, it was replaced by a resentment which almost too deep seated to resolve.

i think the problem is, Croque, that we don't know what was said to Meghan. Would she have listened? Didn't her "UK friends" flag issues with the media etc involved in dating a prince and she brushed it off?

all that stuff may well have been explained to her - it sounds as though the option of carrying on acting was discussed, so surely the reality of being a working royal may also have been detailed.

Who are you answering? And what are we supposed to move on from? It’s not clear to me. Thanks.