The Royal Household, Courtiers, Advisers and Attendants

[tommy100]

I don't think for one minute any one is expecting a complete "one office" approach from the different Households but I think they can and should have a more unified approach to what they do. A lot of the articles point out that various PR moves have been made - e.g. Harry's letter to the press about his girlfriend - while another senior royal is out and about doing something important. Quite frankly, its just good business to ensure one part of any organisation does not take focus away from another at important times/events.

The fact is, the Queen will not live for ever - it makes sense IMO for there to be a co-ordinated approach and staffing at a senior level now as within the next 10-15 years we will have a new King and new Prince of Wales, so does it not make sense for them to work together so its easier and smoother when they all take on their new roles?

[Duke of Marmalade]

yet another change within brf staff ...
Prince Charles loses right-hand man after other departures | Daily Mail Online

[Dman]

Clearly, the press wasn't ready for such changes within the royal households staff.

[Troffy1971]

Good Morning All, has anybody got any information on People who have served as Prince Philips Aide-de-camp, or is there a link to a list I could use

Thanks in Advance for your help

[Curryong]

I don't know of any such lists. As far as I know Prince Philip didn't have aides de camp, although he himself was ADC to his wife, in an honorary capacity. If you wrote to Buckingham Palace, to the Lord Chamberlain's office, they would know I should think.

[vkrish]

There is a very handsome and dashing ADC. I actually meant ta ask about him on this board but didn't. He is in the videos where Prince Philip uses the f-word. Right at the beginning when the Prince is being welcomed..

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DyKNVfVTs9Q

. In this video you can see him from 0.26 in the background with LiW. Again at 1.27

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iDCn0lGhaLg

. Again here at 0.12. Behind William. Just a flicker. So cool n confident in bearing. Looks pretty junior.. Any info on him?

[Skippyboo]

More likely for Philip to have an Equerry instead of Aide de Camp. I think the Queen is the only ones with Aide de Camp.

[vkrish]

Ya maybe he s an equerry. I wish I can know the name of the current equerry

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Originally Posted by vkrish

Ya maybe he s an equerry. I wish I can know the name of the current equerry

The guy in your first video is Wing Commander Samuel (called Sam) Fletcher. He was the Queen's equerry (2015–2017) and is seen in almost all the videos I've posted of Her Majesty's engagements and audiences in various threads here over the last year (the last time was with HM at Canada House on July 19th).

Pictures of him:
http://news.images.itv.com/image/fil...stream_img.jpg
http://www.macleans.ca/wp-content/up...EEN_CARD02.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/...8428219865.jpg
http://www2.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Q...V5zmUcrd2l.jpg

He was replaced in July this year by Major Nana Kofi Twumasi-Ankrah, the first black man to be appointed to this position.

The person in your second video seems to be another guy.

[polyesco]

article from the DailyMail
Queen's top aide 'is ousted in power struggle' | Daily Mail Online

[ladongas]

This is not a very attractive look for the BRF.

[MARG]

I think we all have to say "Tabloids" or "DM" and remember that any of the people involved in this reshuffle know better than to trash talk the BRF. It is the fastest way to become persona no grata in the upper eschelons of power and the social circles they live in themselves.

Logically speaking, if a Private Secretary is asking HM to choose between he and her son the answer is a no-brainer which is why I doubt the rumour. Having served HM for 14 years he knows whats what.

However, because of HM's longevity, I think some of her staff may be a little proprietary about access to her, etc. which is an absolute necessity if she is to lighten her load to PoW and enable her to spend more time with her husband.

BP ways are not CH ways and it is again, a no-brainer to rein in KP. The aforementioned clash of events speak for themselves. I also think that KP needs to act in concert with the rest of the BRF to ensure a continuity of standards.

[tommy100]

It was a surprising announcement so I am not surprised there is discussion or rumour about why he left. As for how much of it is true, only a handful of people will ever really know.

[royal rob]

Who knows what's true but I have a feeling it could be. I could see there being a sort of infighting. There are a few ego's involved

[tommy100]

I read the Times article in the actual print newspaper while I was out this morning. A couple of points I picked from it:

Firstly its not just a small article its on their front page, three other pages (some of which is more about 'Charles taking over') and mentioned in the opinion section.

Charles and Andrew basically teamed up and insisted Sir Christopher was told to go, the Queen ultimately agreed to this.

Basically, Charles felt Sir Christopher was getting in the way of him having a more "king-in-waiting" role, Charles apparently wants to appear at more events with the Queen such as the Maundy service so people are use to seeing him at such things.


It says Samantha Cohen did resign in solidarity with Sir Christopher but was persuaded by the Queen to stay until after the Commonwealth summit in London

It says Charles' staff were unhappy with Sir Christopher announcing Philip's retirement, the lack of consultation about it and the fact he seemed to go 'above his station' in their eyes. This was duly reported back to Charles.

Andrew and Charles may get on better than often reported and Andrew it seems saw this as an opportunity to get rid of someone who he blames for making him give up his Trade Envoy role and for denying him use of helicopters and jets "...as often as Andrew would like".

The Queen apparently gave into her sons' request for him to go because at 91 she would "rather have a quiet life".

Kensington Palace sources are said to have made it clear they liked Sir Christopher and "admired him as a public servant" who was well respected. These sources made it clear KP had nothing to do with his 'ousting'.

Apparently the Queen is said to dislike how friendly and close the younger royals at KP are with their staff.

The Lord Chamberlain told Sir Christopher his position was untenable. Earl Peel just happens to be close to Charles, who had recommended him for the job of Lord Chamberlain.

All eyes will be on the New Year's honours list to see if Sir Christopher gets the traditional retirement peerage.


Personally as much as I want to take this with a pinch of salt this is the Times not just a gossipy tabloid and I always had the impression that Sir Christopher would be with the Queen until the end of her reign. His most recent Honour talked about services to planing a transition into a new reign so I am personally surprised he walked away before that change took place. He is still relatively young and seemed very good at his job so this would certainly explain why he left his post.
To me it reflects poorly on Charles if he did play a role in this, Sir Christopher was the person who flew over a few years ago to meet the Australian PM purely to convince her to support Charles as the next Head of the Commonwealth so to pay him back in such a manner would be unfair. Sir Christopher seemed to be the one wanting to unite the households and in doing so Charles could easily have had a role like he wanted, at the Queen's side yet he seemed insistent on doing so while still keeping his own staff in the way he always has - i.e. he wants a bigger role at the Queen's side but won't change how he and his staff operate - a bit of "wanting his cake and eating it". IMO it reflects poorly on Charles and what his reign may bring.

Edit - this article is pretty much word for word the Times article (which is behind a pay wall) so everyone should be able to read this version http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...ee733cced0bbdc

[Dman]

There's always "palace intrigue" going on behind the scenes. It's going on in the White House too.

The truth is that the royal family are going through a transition and, with that, palace staff go through their usual drama.

[Curryong]

Thank you for that most interesting summing up of the Times article, tommy. It is indeed illuminating, and in my view does not show Charles in a very good light at all. To insist on the resignation of a man who has served your mother loyally and well because he seems to have got above himself (what are we living in, the 1850's?) is both petty and wrong, IMO. As for Andrew....!

It certainly shines a rather unsalubrious light on what goes on behind the scenes.

[O-H Anglophile]

On the other hand, here is a different thought. Sir Christopher has been used to running things at BP. But with Philip's retirement, other royals will need to step in--perhaps Sir Christopher thought he would now run everything in all the households but Charles and his staff disagreed. And rather than having to work with/coordinate with CH and KP instead of running everything, Sir Christopher resigned.

[tommy100]

Buckingham Palace plays down 'power struggle' claims - BBC News

The BBC are now carrying the story and IMO the most interesting thing is even they say "The BBC understands Sir Christopher - the Queen's most senior and trusted advisor - did not step down willingly."and "The BBC's royal correspondent Peter Hunt has spoken to several people, inside and outside the ancient institution, who have confirmed this decision was not taken willingly by Sir Christopher." The BBC has the strictest rules about sources and their accuracy so IMO this is pretty much confirmation he was sacked.

[royal rob]

Originally Posted by tommy100

Buckingham Palace plays down 'power struggle' claims - BBC News

The BBC are now carrying the story and IMO the most interesting thing is even they say "The BBC understands Sir Christopher - the Queen's most senior and trusted advisor - did not step down willingly."and "The BBC's royal correspondent Peter Hunt has spoken to several people, inside and outside the ancient institution, who have confirmed this decision was not taken willingly by Sir Christopher." The BBC has the strictest rules about sources and their accuracy so IMO this is pretty much confirmation he was sacked.

I agree and such a shame it ended like this. I feel sorry for him.