Valentine Low book "Courtiers" Extra chapters for paperback. About statement after Oprah interview

[RYGO]

While they were as concerned as anyone about not getting into a tit-for-tat with Harry and Meghan, William and Kate were clear which side of the debate they were on. “They wanted it toughened up a bit,” said the insider. “They were both of one mind that we needed something that said that the institution did not accept a lot of what had been said.

“He said, ‘It is really important that you guys come up with the right way of making sure that we are saying that this does not stand.’ She was certainly right behind him on it.”

While some have attributed “recollections may vary” to Alderton, more than one source has said that the author was in fact Jean-Christophe Gray, William’s new private secretary, who had been in post for less than three weeks. At least two senior officials in other households were against its inclusion, because they feared that it would rile Harry and Meghan. But once the phrase had been added to the draft, it was — according to another source — the Duchess of Cambridge who pressed home the argument that it should remain. “It was Kate who clearly made the point, ‘History will judge this statement and unless this phrase or a phrase like it is included, everything that they have said will be taken as true.’ ”

This was, said the source, yet another example of how Kate is often far steelier than she appears. The toughened-up draft went to Buckingham Palace for approval, and came back a couple of hours later. The Queen had said yes.

The four-sentence statement was eventually released just before 5.30pm on Tuesday. It said, “The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan. The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. While some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately. Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members.”

How is he not a credible journalist? He was the one who broke the bullying story, and never retracted the story even when the sussexes issued legal threats. Also, the sussexes submitting a 25 page report to the bullying claims doesn't mean anything. Harry in his own book acknowledged that the staff were breaking down at their desks, but indirectly blames the staff for not being able to accept ‘constructive criticism’. And furthermore, there's also been reports coming out in the USA that some of the Spotify staff also experienced incidents of bullying from the Sussexes.

Yes, it is. It was Mandy Rice-Davies. I use it all the time. The radio says, "Keir Starmer/Rishi Sunak says..." and I reply, "He would say that, wouldn't he."

I thought it was rude of Meghan to downplay what Catherine experienced in the media as merely being called ‘waity katie’, and then describes it as nowhere near as bad compared to what she (Meghan) experienced. Like, did it ever occur to Meghan that being stalked and chased by paparazzi, to the point that Catherine couldn't even get out of her house without being harrassed by the press calling her slurs like ‘slut or ‘whore’, or where upskirt and topless photos were taken of her, or where her phone was hacked hundreds of times, or when her ‘commoner’ background was criticized, are a lot worse than just being called ‘waity katie’?

My mistake @stillavid apologies

Personally I think this is all part of the rebranding of Kate as the QE11 of the ‘Charles-William’ reign.

The ‘pseudo crown’ and cloak get up was a pretty strong statement at the coronation. Her fashion has been bright block colours like then Queen and very stylised hair, stronger makeup. She’s definitely going for an ‘alpha female’ of royal family look.

I think this has all been fed to the biographer just as it would be the tabloids and we’re naively gobbling it up.

I also get the vibe that DM is flipping the script on Kate and William lately. There’s just no good stories anymore and it’s like the royal family is no longer interesting enough to justify puff pieces/DM basicslly being a PR office for them. In my view.

There have always been hints in the press that Kate has a 'backbone of steel' and I think she sometimes gives off a bit of a 'don't mess with me' vibe even if the cameras are on her (e.g. the walkabout with H and M following the Queen's death). I don't think it's a coincidence that absolute primogeniture replaced male preference primogeniture in time for W and K's children. She's been underestimated by anyone that thinks she's merely a clothes horse.

@Embelline apologies from me if I sounded snippy!

You couldn't last in any public role without being tough. If you're the sort to fade or collapse under criticism, then like politics, the RF is not for you. But she really did show herself as a woman not to be dicked around with at the pre funeral walkabout at Windsor. No wonder Meghan looked apprehensive and William walked between them. Lol. Good on Kate. She took criticism for years. She's going to be the next Queen. Of course she should get input into how the RF move forward. That line is now iconic, you see it quoted all the time. And as time goes on, it's becomes used more and more as put down of Harry.

I really feel that Kate has grown into her role over the years. Unlike she who shall not be named, Kate took her time, listened to people who'd done the job for years, and learned from them. I thought she was very savvy to not befriend Meghan and not confide in her about anything, she clearly got bad vibes from her and decided to keep her distance and how wise does she look now? I used to think Kate was bland and boring, now I see her as calm and patient and able to play the long game. She knew she had years to learn the role and she's been in no hurry. It doesn't surprise me at all that she's a wise counsel to William who, behind closed doors, is prepared to make her opinions clear.

I’m going to be completely against here and say that while Meghan and Harry have bored everyone to tears by this stage with going on about their issues, the issues were in fact very real issues. There is a huge issue with the tabloid media in the UK and they were savaging Meghan particularly at that time and they were being fed stories to bolster William and Charles’ status.

The statement the queen released was completely antagonistic and was incredibly dismissive.

I think if the monarchy falls within two generations it will be the queens handling of the entire Harry debacle that will have set it in motion.

I don’t know. I think Kate’s instinct was right, there were inaccuracies in what H and particularly M said, many of which have been discussed at length on these threads. That interview was a grenade, and it needed to be dealt with.

Thank you for the share token @goldierocks

" There is a huge issue with the tabloid media in the UK and they were savaging Meghan particularly at that time and they were being fed stories to bolster William and Charles’ status."

No arguing that the tabloid press are appalling.

But I've seen this stated several times, but with nothing to back it up? What stories bolstered Charles & William at the expense of Meghan & Harry?

I'm old enough to actually remember the press at that time. There were positive and critical stories about all of them. Yes, Meghan had some criticism, but there was also plenty of positive stories.

Can someone please point me in the direction of those "placed" stories we were apparently being fed?

I do agree with that

“The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan. The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. While some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately. Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members.”

What was completely antagonist and incredibly dismissive about this statement?

But I've seen this stated several times, but with nothing to back it up? What stories bolstered Charles & William at the expense of Meghan & Harry?

I don't think there are any. The sole source of the idea is Meghan, her source Harry. That, we now know, is not terribly reliable

It doesn't make sense - doing down other members of the RF would be the bigger story, and it's not come out (and it would). If it did, it would be harmful - it's a strategy that has more risk than benefit.

The households of course seek the most positive coverage for their principles, but not at the expense of the other principles. H&M no longer have the Palace briefing in ways that enhance their reputation (naturally, as they've left and it's no longer their business). But I haven't seen any posts, or articles elsewhere, showing actual examples of likely briefing against them

@MrsFinkelstein

You know when someone apologises for something and midway through their apology includes a but statement which is really the point they want to make.

“While some recollections may vary” was the PR spin speak for a but, this sentence is aggressive and dismissive.

Imagine a row with your husband, would you feel good if as part of his acknowledgment of your position he said recollections may vary. No because you would feel like he was dismissing what you were saying.

But it would be understandable if what you'd said wasn't true.

Yeah I think the general premise that family member X could suppress a story about them by releasing a story on family member Y kind of… flawed. That wouldn’t work. And Meghan & Harry have proved it doesn’t work, they’ve released 1000s negative stories about other people but are still unpopular.

The phrase literally means what it says: “that’s not how we remember it”. It’s a classy way of saying there’s more than one version of the story but they don’t want to get into a public tit for tat.

I think it was a straightforward way of pointing out that everyone sees a situation slightly differently. As happens in families - and not just in families, if lots of witnesses describe the same incident in ways that are too similar that is very suspect!

So rather than get into a 'you said this, well YOU said that', it is best to acknowledge that we see things differently, and that is OK.

For example, my rules about 'no screen time after a certain time' is cruel and unusual punishement according to DD2, and all her friends can be on their phones all night.

It's a completely age-appropriate response!

And as a parent I have a different perspective 😂

You've been listening to doctor Phil. "If you use 'but' it negates what was said before." No, it doesn't. Dr Phil's an old hack.
You can acknowledge someone's feelings but you don't have to agree they're right.
Why should the royals have to listen to being called racists and not deny it? Especially when the person who made the charge later says they never said or meant that.

There is nothing classy about recollections my vary, it was snidely an unnecessary

I wouldn't be pissed if I knew what I had been saying was untrue.