Royal Commentators, reporters and authors

[HistoryGirl2]

Plus the other portion of this short statement is often forgotten.

This is the statement which was 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.?

It?s not the fact that the Queen emphasised that Harry and Meghan had found the years challenging, or that her grandson and his wife will always be loved family members. No no. It?s not that issues raised were concerning and would be taken seriously, addressed privately. No. It?s the five words about recollections that the media concentrated on in that statement and still does. Five words out of that statement.

Correct, which is why the phrase is PR gold. That?s judged based on the effectiveness of having the statement be remembered. And it?s quite obvious within the context exactly what the Palace was trying to convey. We?re sorry *they* had found it challenging. Not we?re sorry *we* made it challenging for them, which is what Meghan and Harry were alleging. The Queen didn?t draft that statement herself, it was written for her and she okay?d it. It spoke for the Palace and the Firm as a whole not Granny Elizabeth.

But even though I find it to be brilliant, I say that with the benefit of hindsight. Every single event since then has proven it to be the motto for anything relating to those two individuals. Their recollections seem to always vary when compared to that of others involved in any scenario. So, the phrase?s lasting power is a combination of good writing and it just being 100% correct and proven to be so. Any way you cut it.

[Curryong]

I read it and found it to be very well researched.

Except, what does ?well researched? mean when writing about courtiers. A series of middle aged white males having long conversations with another middle aged white male of the same background, and all of them singing from the same hymn sheet about a particular topic? It was that entirely different tweet that Low let slip from his Twitter page at the time when the Sussexes were leaving that interests me. The tweet that he had heard (from insiders) that Meghan ?was in a bad way that summer.?  Not PR stuff from the Palace.

[HistoryGirl2]

Except, what does ?well researched? mean when writing about courtiers. A series of middle aged white males having long conversations with another middle aged white male of the same background, and all of them singing from the same hymn sheet about a particular topic?

And this is actually a myth that Low has done well to put to bed, which makes me more curious to read the book. This isn?t 1964. The Palace isn?t stuffed with the grey men anymore. He?s talked about this extensively in many interviews.

[Curryong]

Correct, which is why the phrase is PR gold. That?s judged based on the effectiveness of having the statement be remembered. And it?s quite obvious within the context exactly what the Palace was trying to convey. We?re sorry *they* had found it challenging. Not we?re sorry *we* made it challenging for them, which is what Meghan and Harry were alleging. The Queen didn?t draft that statement herself, it was written for her and she okay?d it. It spoke for the Palace and the Firm as a whole not Granny Elizabeth.

But that?s what happens always with the Palace. Their mouthpieces, the courtiers, speak for them, write their speeches and public statements. They don?t even draft anything themselves, except possibly Charles. They are the chess pieces and the courtiers are the chess players (always protecting their own butts at the same time), but the sad thing is the Royal Family don?t even realise it.

[HistoryGirl2]

I read it and found it to be very well researched.

I believe it. Very interesting.

[HistoryGirl2]

But that?s what happens always with the Palace. Their mouthpieces, the courtiers, speak for them, write their speeches and public statements. They don?t even draft anything themselves, except possibly Charles. They are the chess pieces and the courtiers are the chess players (always protecting their own butts at the same time), but the sad thing is the Royal Family don?t even realise it.

Yes, it?s kind of their job. The royals wouldn?t be anywhere without them. I?m not sure why they would ever be sad about it.

[Curryong]

And this is actually a myth that Low has done well to put to bed, which makes me more curious to read the book. This isn?t 1964. The Palace isn?t stuffed with the grey men anymore. He?s talked about this extensively in many interviews.

He might talk about it in his interviews, however the 2023 Royal Foundation report, which I linked yesterday has the figures. People of minority and diverse backgrounds still make up less than 10% of those working at the Palace. And I would bet that very few of that 9% are senior courtiers.

[HistoryGirl2]

^ And yet, that?s not so disproportionate to the percentage of minorities in the UK in other public positions:

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01156/#:~:text=In%202021%2F22%20about%2013,Ireland%20to%2015%25%20in%20England.

The Palace isn?t that much different than other major institution. The implication that Harry, in particular, wanted to portray is like everything with him: a desire to harken back to Diana. That image of old, white men who had never stepped foot outside the palace gates if it wasn?t to go off shooting with their aristocratic set. The palace, and particularly, the people that Harry and Meghan were working with were young professionals you?d find anywhere else in the UK.

[Curryong]

Yes, it?s kind of their job. The royals wouldn?t be anywhere without them. I?m not sure why they would ever be sad about it.

Yes, Im sure they are very content to have others craft speeches for them, tell them what to say on various occasions and generally run their lives from birth to death for them. The sadness comes from others observing their lives.

[HistoryGirl2]

^Yes, I?m weeping for them, as my heart bleeds for the sadness of it all. Having top professionals protect them at every turn and dedicate themselves to the institution. The nightmare.

[Curryong]

^ And yet, that?s not so disproportionate to the percentage of minorities in the UK in other public positions:

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01156/#:~:text=In%202021%2F22%20about%2013,Ireland%20to%2015%25%20in%20England.

Well, that says a lot about the UK, glass ceilings and other obstacles. However, one would expect, and hope, that those running the lives of the HOS would be leaders in that sphere, not run with the pack. And that 9% figure has not moved for several years.

[HistoryGirl2]

^So they should just hire minorities for the sake of looks? I say this as a minority myself, by the way.

[Curryong]

^Yes, I?m weeping for them, as my heart bleeds for the sadness of it all.

Nobody is talking about weeping. It?s just a fact of life. And has been observed by others writing about the RF, including ex courtiers, for years. Long before Low.

[HistoryGirl2]

^As it?s a fact of life that the individuals that work there have a job to do, which is what Low is highlighting. They were made the scapegoats for the ridiculous behavior of a few to play into a decades old narrative. I?m glad to see him set the record straight.

[Curryong]

^So they should just hire minorities for the sake of looks? I say this as a minority myself, by the way.

No, everybody, from all sorts of backgrounds should be given a chance. I refuse to believe that very very few applicants of diverse backgrounds have been considered for senior roles because of unsuitability.

[HistoryGirl2]

^Until that?s proven, I?ll stick with judging their employees by their actions not their ethnic background.

[Curryong]

^As it?s a fact of life that the individuals that work there have a job to do, which is what Low is highlighting. They were made the scapegoats for the ridiculous behavior of a few to play into a decades old narrative. I?m glad to see him set the record straight.

Have you read the whole book? Because in fact, in the original edition he does go into bat for Meghan in that he felt that certain courtiers didn?t give her much of a chance.

[HistoryGirl2]

Have you read the whole book?

As I?ve stated above, I?ve not. I?ve heard him talk about in a number of interviews and he?s quite fair all around. The story began due to the actions of two individuals, but based on Low?s words, it?s about their positions serving various members of the family?challenges and all. Have you read it?

Believe it or not, not everything is about Meghan and Harry. I?m intrigued by their positions serving the family as a whole, as their jobs are similar to other PR officials in some ways but also different in others. There?s also a tendency to speak about them as if they?re one entity. They?re individuals, who all have their own opinions and experiences. I?m interested in hearing them.

[Curryong]

As I?ve stated above, I?ve not. I?ve heard him talk about in a number of interviews and he?s quite fair all around. The story began due to the actions of two individuals, but based on Low?s words, it?s about their positions serving various members of the family?challenges and all. Have you read it?

Believe it or not, not everything is about Meghan and Harry. I?m intrigued by their positions serving the family as a whole, as their jobs are similar to other PR officials in some ways but also different in others.

I?m aware of that. However it is the chapters dealing with Megxit, the events leading up to it and afterwards that the media SM and forums like this have concentrated on. And Low knew this when he wrote his book.

[HistoryGirl2]

^Yes, he?s said that in various interviews. That was the catalyst but by no means the focus of this book. And that?s certainly not why I?m intrigued by the book. I already know everything I need to know about that situation.

This book is about what the title says it?s about: courtiers and their jobs, which includes PR statements as those stated above.

[Curryong]

^Yes, he?s said that in various interviews. That was the catalyst but by no means the focus of this book. And that?s certainly not why I?m intrigued by the book. I already know everything I need to know about that situation.

This book is about what the title says it?s about: courtiers and their jobs, which includes PR statements as those stated above.

Another extract from the book highlights the archaic nature of much of the istitution.

?However, the monarchy also has its own peculiar management structure, which, in the view of some critics, is a mess. In overall charge is the Lord Chamberlain. Then there is the private secretary, who is in charge of policy and runs the diary. He is, in effect, the chief executive officer (CEO). After that, there is the Keeper of the Privy Purse, the chief financial officer (CFO), and the Master of the Household, the equivalent of the chief operating officer (COO). In any normal management system, the CEO would be above the CFO and the COO. But not at the palace. ?It is a team of rivals,? said one insider. ?They are all equals.? At least one former courtier believes that structure will not last much longer?.

[HistoryGirl2]

^?they?re also representing a literal monarchy?I repeat: a monarchy. I guess I?m looking at it from a contextual standpoint. This is an archaic institution that is trying to adapt whilst maintaining their sense of tradition. What some may see as a problem is what I find intriguing about it. Straddling tradition with attempts at modernity. That?s what I alluded to above: in some ways, their jobs are similar to others and also very different in others.

[wannable]

Extracted from Courtiers: The Hidden Power behind the Crown by Valentine Low, out in paperback on July 6  To order a copy, go to timesbookshop.co.uk or call 020 3176 2935. Free UK standard P&P on orders over 25. Discount available for Times+ members

@HistoryGirl2 ^ Above is the details to purchase the 'new' (added chapters) of the book, only paperback edition has the new chapters. Available: July 6.

If you need any other Q&A about purchasing the paperback, Valentine Low is open to answer questions via his twitter account. He has replied to Richard Eden, Cepe Smith, others.  I think he has also placed a bookshop in the US in reply to a request. He is promoting the paperback/new extracts, first tweet in his feed.

I didn't read all the comments/replies in his tweet about this, but I think the hardcover from Nov 2022 does not have the added chapters. Only the paperback edition out July 6.

[Curryong]

Yes, not all of it is bad. However in practical terms that sort of structure has, especially at times when some Households were under strain, led to bitter infighting, rivalries and undercutting each others? turf. Almost like a medieval court, complete with whispers in corridors.

[HistoryGirl2]

@HistoryGirl2 ^ Above is the details to purchase the 'new' (added chapters) of the book, only paperback edition has the new chapters. Available: July 6.

If you need any other Q&A about purchasing the paperback, Valentine Low is open to answer questions via his twitter account. He has replied to Richard Eden, Cepe Smith, others.  I think he has also placed a bookshop in the US in reply to a request. He is promoting the paperback/new extracts, first tweet in his feed.

I didn't read all the comments/replies in his tweet about this, but I think the hardcover from Nov 2022 does not have the added chapters. Only the paperback edition out July 6.

Thanks, @TLLK!