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.”

No there aren’t fleeting looks. All filmed during sermon, televised shortly after and royals chose who filmed it. If anything I thjnk it would have been edited to minimise the reactions.

Evertone knew the world was watching & Bishoo Curry would presumably dee the video of it, which is what makes it even more disrespectful & unapologetic.

I wouldn't rely on photos as they only capture a moment in time but I remember watching the wedding and seeing them smirk and I thought it was rude.

I'll give Zara a pass as she was heavily pregnant and it was very hot and I thought she looked more bemused than amused.

Plus even the mainstream media commented on the reactions and social media was awash with it. It was a televised world event, it’s not like there was ten paparazzi focused on one person and looking for a micro second of expression.

Incredible level of protection & bias for the royal family. They really are untouchable & impervious to anything.

I think that’s why Kate is the first Princess by marriage since the Queen Mother to have survived the institution.

I think that from well before they were engaged, W&K discussed in depth and with courtiers and advisors galore, exactly what their future would be; what sort of king and queen they would be; what sort of monarchy they are aiming for; how they want to be perceived. All we’re seeing now from both of them is the implementation of a slowly evolving plan. Kate and William are playing a game so long that it started before their marriage and is set to end well after the crown is comfortably on George’s head. Of course she has a backbone of steel. Her family, her children, her reputation, millions of pounds, her life’s endeavour, history books, the entire BRF institution, umpteen employees of whichever palace are all predicated on her and William’s actions. She yields immense power. Yes she’s going to protect all that from onslaughts like the OW interview. It remains to be seen how nimble and adaptive the couple are as life throws trouble their way. The late Queen let herself be swayed by Tony Blair when Diana died, and it was a big mistake. Neither William nor Kate have shown the temperament or steadfastness she had, but tbf they’re still in waiting. She’d already been queen a solid 20 years by the time she was Kate’s age.

And, once she’s on the throne, the media will do nothing but fawn over Kate. Nobody but the guardian goes after the reigning monarch, and even then it’s after a tight investigation. Charles is smart to bend to that paper as much as he has.

Simultaneously, I agree with PP re Kate and people of colour and frankly anyone outside her social set (although she’s more comfortable when they’re white). She’s utterly out of her depth with them. They’re foreign to her and she doesn’t relate. She’s very different from William in this way. I hate to say it, but you can take the girl out of the Home Counties but you can’t take the Home Counties out of the girl. She doesn’t yet have the (utterly gross) confidence of someone (like Philip) knowing she will always be protected no matter how awful she is. Once she has that, I think we’ll see more of this side of Kate.

sheworemellowyellow, don't you think it's far more likely that she knows every interaction is going to microanalysed, footage is going to be manipulated etc - I can imagine she can't relax because she knows someone will take a perfectly ordinary, nice interaction, chop the footage up, have 'experts' analyse every facial movement - exactly the same thing happened to Meghan after the Oprah Winfrey interview and the Netflix docs. No wonder they can't be natural with people.

Your last couple of sentences are projecting hugely.

“You can take the girl out of the Home Counties, but you can’t take the Home Counties out of the girl”

🤣🤣🤣

There is footage of Harry and Meghan trying not to laugh during parts of the speech / sermon, there is even footage where she actually does laugh and looks at Harry, Harry meanwhile looks like he is totally zoned out during the sermon and not really hearing a word of what is being said.

Also her friend, the stylist one, who was sitting front row can be seen smiling / smirking.. Beatrice was the one where there was a real close up of her trying really hard not to laugh and Zara with a frozen look on her face. . Honestly, the pastor or whatever his title is, spouted a lot of absolute content that was worthy of a giggle or two, he really did love to take advantage of his moment in the limelight.

That narrative makes no sense:

1. A portion of the British press are anti monarchists/pro republic like the Guardian. Everytime they have the opportunity to print a story that would damage the monarchy, they'd do it.

2. If you actually look at the biggest negative stories about the Sussexes:

-The blood earings Meghan wore a couple of weeks after the murder of Jamal Khashoggi who was gifted to her by his alleged killer, a Saudi Prince. Kensington Palace then LIED to protect her and said that it was a loan.

-Them travelling in private jets while preaching about climate change. Both Charles and Philip were criticised for decades for their stance on environmental issues. William gets criticised for using helicopters. They're not special. The Palace didn't leak that story.
What actually happened is that H&M used the jet company NetJets for their private trips. Their social media accounts started posting paparazzi photos of them to promote their planes and that's around the time they started getting criticised for taking private jets.

-The bullying allegations, I have to admit that I didn’t believe them at first due to the timing yet Harry saying that several members of their staff broke down crying at their desks tells me there might be some truth to it

-The flower girl dress has to be the most ridiculous story ever. The story was not even as big as people believe. Outside of people who follow the RF daily, most people didn’t care. Meghan's version on Oprah was a thousand times bigger and led to Kate receiving a lot of threats on social media. When it first came out, I thought "Meghan was a nervous bride, Kate was still hormonal", no big deal. Maybe, Kate cried at home too. We'll never know. I just think that story is ridiculous.

And it's actually ironic of H&M accusing the Palace of briefing stories them to the press when both of them briefed stories about hem and the RF through Jason Knauff to Omid Scobie for the writing of his book "Finding Freedom".

Their lawyer said on their Netflix show that they have evidence. Where is it? Which stories? They have no proof which is why it's all been unfounded allegations for the past 2-3 years

Honestly, the pastor or whatever his title is

Bishop. Like the Archbishop of Canterbury but perhaps you'd refer to Justin Welty as a vicar or whatever his title is.

Funny what different people see. I saw a preacher very much playing to the gallery, looking for laughs, and getting them. What people have described as smirking I saw as smiling. I think he got a very good natured response.

I would say getting blamed for a nurse committing suicide after she was pranked by radio DJs pretending to be the Queen while she was getting ready to give birth, the entire world seeing your topless photos and getting slut shamed for it and several journalists body shaming you, saying that she was hurting her unborn baby because she is too thin, might be pretty close

To be honest and not to be rude or dismissive, but I really don't have a clue what any of their titles are, as I don't follow any religion, I certainly don't know anything about the hierarchy of any church or how important someone might be or might not be in any particular organisation.(other than the machinations of lapsed Irish Roman Catholic background). It is totally irrelevant to me.

It’s my observation that she doesn’t need to “relax” into her role when she’s around people like her. There was a meet and greet with an imam at a Muslim center for youth (I think) recently. William shook hands with the imam. Kate then put her hand out to shake, the imam declined in the usual way (hand on heart, smile, head shake) and Kate quickly withdrew her hand, nodded and said “yes”. The smile shrank because she knew she should have known given the oodles of advice and, by now, experience she benefits from. It was a faux pas which, if I were a Muslim subject of the King, I’d be a bit sceptical about.

There have been a number of other such instances. The smiles aren’t as wide; the body language is more restrained; the chat is less effusive. Not all the time, sometimes. She’s normal around little children of all types, I think she just sees “child”. But the above is just the latest example I’ve seen of not being “perfect”. For all his faults, neither Charles nor William (nor indeed Harry) have ever given off this vibe. Charles seems to positively relish it!

Maybe the last bit was projecting. We’ll see I suppose.

'But the above is just the latest example I’ve seen of not being “perfect”.'

But this is my point - she went to shake the Imam's hand, realised he wouldn't shake her hand, withdrew her hand, smiled. Her smile 'shrank' - yep, and how sad that she probably knew someone like you would pick up on the moment and pull her to shreds because of it. As for the restraint and lack of effusiveness, she probably terrified of saying or doing the wrong thing and it being perceived as racism or lack of respect for someone's religion.

I wouldn’t say I’ve “pulled her to shreds”, that an exaggeration. And quite frankly as the future head of the commonwealth she jolly well should be terrified of doing or saying the wrong thing because it WILL be perceived as racism or lack of respect for someone’s religion. It’s not difficult to get these things right. Most people around the world do, even without the advisors to hand. Her husband and FIL manage it quite well. Anyway, I think you’re looking for me to accuse Kate of being a putative racist RF member. I don’t think that. At worst, she just isn’t comfortable outside her set. It shows. Not good enough for a future head of state, but she has time.

I absolutely loved his speech. It was a beautiful message. I don't think they were mocking but it did went on too long. Even H&M looked uncomfortable at some point, Harry especially.

'Anyway, I think you’re looking for me to accuse Kate of being a putative racist RF member. I don’t think that.'

Oh, I dunno - your post upthread included this comment:

'She doesn’t yet have the (utterly gross) confidence of someone (like Philip) knowing she will always be protected no matter how awful she is. Once she has that, I think we’ll see more of this side of Kate.'

Seems as if you're well on the way to accusing Kate of racism.

Plenty of heads of state (and I don't just mean Trump) do and say things that could be taken offence to. However most people recognise that no offence was meant, no-one can be perfect all the time, and we all make the odd faux pas. For someone to blow a small incident totally out of proportion, to go looking for the tiniest perceived infraction just to try and make someone look bad says, frankly, more about them than anyone else.

To be fair the only person I thought was rude during Bishop Curry’s sermon was Beatrice. Most of them managed to compose themselves apart from Camilla and Charles, who at least had the good grace to lower their heads and try to hide that from they were laughing. Beatrice was the only one who was looking around and trying to catch someone’s eye.

Even Meghan looked a little uncomfortable at times and giggled. Harry looked bored and zoned out.

You’ve include Zara in your gallery there. She and her husband were shown on screen once for 3 seconds out of a 13 minute speech. The other pictures were on screen for similar times. Seems a little too short for anyone to be drawing conclusions on that basis. In fact, I think “Fleeting” sums it up perfectly.

Kate making a mistake with the hand shake, just shows she is human

To be fair that preacher was enjoying himself and did go on a lot. Even Meghan laughed.

Also, the gentleman standing in the receiving line directly before the Imam did shake Kate’s hand. So presumably it would have been rude for her not to extend her hand to him, but a split second later she’s rude to extend it to the next gentleman, who is currently shaking her husband’s hand? Lord preserve us all from that kind of microanalysis…

It's tricky. I am part of a local (secular) charity. We have quite a large local mosque that is very community focussed. So lots of occasions where we meet. I never know whether I should shake hands or not. Not because I recoil from POC (I am part of a multi-racial family, apart from my own beliefs about anti-racism) but because I don't know whether - as a woman - the male member of this faith will feeel comfortable making physical contact with me.

I am happy to shake hands, or smile and nod, or acknowledge each other in any other way. I just don't always know what the other person would choose, and want to respect the other person's beliefs.

Meghan was correct that rude is not the same as racist, but she was mistaken to believe that what Kate suffered (criminal harassment, phone hacking, breach of her right to a private life under ECHR) was merely name-calling and rudeness. I think if she’d made more of an effort to learn what Kate went through things could have ended up differently.

“Who Is Bishop Michael Curry? The Episcopal Bishop who delivered a rousing sermon at Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's wedding is also presiding over George H.W. Bush's funeral. Bishop Michael Curry, the head of the Episcopalian Church in America, is presiding over George H.W.”

it only takes a quick Google.

This is the American ‘pastor’ or ‘preacher’ referred to on here.

The Queen gave him the respect he is due.

Some other Royal Family members did not.