Battle of Brothers: William, Harry and the Inside Story of A Family in Tumult

[Duc_et_Pair]

It seems to me that there is a battle. William has been concerned iwth Harry's choice of a wife, afraid that his brother was rushing into marriage.. and within a year of the marriage, Harry and his wife did indeed walk out of royal life, leaving William as almost the only younger member of the working RF. It seems that also there have been arguments about their household and staff.

But the wedding was three years ago, they have two children, have left the monarchy and are not even residing in one of Her Majesty's many realms. If there was any battle, it is over. And the victor is also not clear because if it was Harry's objective to leave the monarchy, he has been succesful indeed.

 

[Denville]

But the wedding was three years ago, they have two children, have left the monarchy and are not even residing in one of Her Majesty's many realms. If there was any battle, it is over. And the victor is also not clear because if it was Harry's objective to leave the monarchy, he has been succesful indeed.

The book was published last year, and presumably researched before that, and i think its pretty darn clear that there is still bad feeling between the 2 young men.
If he's been offered a chance to do a new edition, he can't change the title.. and "Battle of Brothers" sounds better than "Brother's have their ups and downs". Besides, its not exactly inaccurate.

 

[UglyAmerican]

I always thought the staff bullying thing started out as a culture clash, then spiraled. Though the US and UK aren't too far apart culturally, in my experience, Americans tend to be more direct and less interested in pleasantries in a professional context (though of course there's tremendous individual variation). That gulf is probably even wider for the Palace than the UK as a whole. But Knauf, being American himself, would surely have known that and taken it into account when responding to the situation. Harry's the one who chose to marry someone who'd barely set foot in the UK before taking up royal work, so it really should have been Harry's job to explain these sorts of differences before they blew up. But just going by their reactions to other perceived slights, they seem to consistently view any criticism as an attack on Meghan's race or origins, so something like "I understand XYZ is normal in the US, but Palace staffers are more accustomed to ABC" probably wouldn't have gone over well.

If I'm right (big if!), then I'm not sure it's fair to put most of the blame on Meghan. If Harry was insisting that whatever she was doing was fine, as seems to have been the case, I think think most of the blame goes to him here. To some extent, that's true regardless of whether the initial problems were due to cultural difference or just Meghan being difficult. Meghan has some excuse for not knowing what's acceptable in a professional context that's completely foreign to her. Harry doesn't. If he let his love for Meghan completely override his professional judgment, maybe that's understandable, but I think he only made things worse for her (and himself) in the long term by doing that.

 

[Erin9]

I always thought the staff bullying thing started out as a culture clash, then spiraled. Though the US and UK aren't too far apart culturally, in my experience, Americans tend to be more direct and less interested in pleasantries in a professional context (though of course there's tremendous individual variation). That gulf is probably even wider for the Palace than the UK as a whole. But Knauf, being American himself, would surely have known that and taken it into account when responding to the situation. Harry's the one who chose to marry someone who'd barely set foot in the UK before taking up royal work, so it really should have been Harry's job to explain these sorts of differences before they blew up. But just going by their reactions to other perceived slights, they seem to consistently view any criticism as an attack on Meghan's race or origins, so something like "I understand XYZ is normal in the US, but Palace staffers are more accustomed to ABC" probably wouldn't have gone over well.



If I'm right (big if!), then I'm not sure it's fair to put most of the blame on Meghan. If Harry was insisting that whatever she was doing was fine, as seems to have been the case, I think think most of the blame goes to him here. To some extent, that's true regardless of whether the initial problems were due to cultural difference or just Meghan being difficult. Meghan has some excuse for not knowing what's acceptable in a professional context that's completely foreign to her. Harry doesn't. If he let his love for Meghan completely override his professional judgment, maybe that's understandable, but I think he only made things worse for her (and himself) in the long term by doing that.

Honestly- I have trouble believing that a culture clash was the driving issue with staff. As you said- the US and UK aren’t that different. Americans may well be more direct- depending on the individual of course. But I personally know many Americans from diverse backgrounds who moved to the UK and had an over-all good experience. I do agree that marrying into the BRF is certainly more complicated- for anyone- but I don’t really buy the idea that being American made it inherently difficult to impossible. Particularly when she had Americans, such as JK, as part of her staff.

What I’m getting is the problem was ultimately both of them. Meghan apparently wasn’t adapting, and Harry apparently rejected any and all criticism. Not that it was all their fault; it never is. But- that they have shown a consistent inability- even in retrospect- to take responsibility for anything, but laid it at the feet of everyone and everything speaks for itself IMO.

 

[HighGoalHighDreams]

I find it notable that reportedly the two KP aides that left asked that their complaints went no further when they found out that Knauf was passing the complaints on.

And if it is untrue/biased/skewed? And it iIS all rumour. We are never likely to know the truth even after the BP Inquiry as it is more ?a Way Forward document or programme? as opposed to some critique of the Sussexes, who haven?t been asked to participate. And, as we saw clearly (those that can remember it) there was a clear stream of hints, assertions allegations about behaviour and mental state etc, coming from both sides during the War of the Wales?s and most of it was very partisan, on both sides, with the truth somewhere in the middle.

And as for this latest saga, unless ALL documents, emails and written complaints are placed in the public arena (very unlikely IMO) I think everyone should tread lightly in leaping to conclusions, especially from a KP aide (not a psychiatrist) who described another person as ?unhinged?, and a friend of one of the brothers describing Harry as being ?thrown out? of a Foundation he and William began.

Much of my professional life concerns employment disputes that have reached the level of agency/ legal resolution. This is indeed very notable, and here's why:

It is exceedingly rare for someone who has made a false or exaggerated report to "back down" during the resolution process. The normal response we would expect to see in such a case is for such a person to dig in their heels and perhaps even add to the reported behavior and demand a more serious resolution.

However, it is very common indeed for a victim of workplace discrimination, bullying, or other ill behavior to withdraw complaints as the complaint is escalated during the resolution or reporting process. This is because victims often do not understand when they make an initial report or complaint the level of involvement they will need to have with the resolution process and how much it will often feel like re-vicitimization. Indeed, many victims did not even realize when they mentioned the behavior to a colleague or superior that they were "reporting" and are uncomfortable with taking part in any resolution due to having to relive trauma, confront the abuser with their own behavior in an uncomfortable or traumatic way, or feeling that having an official "report" will act as a black mark on them even though they are the reporter.

As a more familiar example, this is the same pattern often seen in crime victims. Many victims of crime will "tell someone," officially or unofficially, but as soon as the resolution (such as prosecution) is laid out to the victim, they will withdraw the complaint and refuse to participate further. As a society, we have come to understand that this is not because they were not victimized, but because they were harmed so deeply that seeking a formal resolution is not a viable option. We have also come to understand that the cases where someone declines to seek a formal resolution because the original complaint was untrue are so rare as to be almost unheard of.

*Please understand I am speaking in general terms, not the specific case of the Sussex staff which we know almost nothing about, to explain why the above bolded, if true, may in fact be significant.*

 

[Erin9]

Much of my professional life concerns employment disputes that have reached the level of agency/ legal resolution. This is indeed very notable, and here's why:



It is exceedingly rare for someone who has made a false or exaggerated report to "back down" during the resolution process. The normal response we would expect to see in such a case is for such a person to dig in their heels and perhaps even add to the reported behavior and demand a more serious resolution.



However, it is very common indeed for a victim of workplace discrimination, bullying, or other ill behavior to withdraw complaints as the complaint is escalated during the resolution or reporting process. This is because victims often do not understand when they make an initial report or complaint the level of involvement they will need to have with the resolution process and how much it will often feel like re-vicitimization. Indeed, many victims did not even realize when they mentioned the behavior to a colleague or superior that they were "reporting" and are uncomfortable with taking part in any resolution due to having to relive trauma, confront the abuser with their own behavior in an uncomfortable or traumatic way, or feeling that having an official "report" will act as a black mark on them even though they are the reporter.



As a more familiar example, this is the same pattern often seen in crime victims. Many victims of crime will "tell someone," officially or unofficially, but as soon as the resolution (such as prosecution) is laid out to the victim, they will withdraw the complaint and refuse to participate further. As a society, we have come to understand that this is not because they were not victimized, but because they were harmed so deeply that seeking a formal resolution is not a viable option. We have also come to understand that the cases where someone declines to seek a formal resolution because the original complaint was untrue are so rare as to be almost unheard of.



*Please understand I am speaking in general terms, not the specific case of the Sussex staff which we know almost nothing about, to explain why the above bolded, if true, may in fact be significant.*

I’m far from an expert, but I do over all agree with what you’ve said. Thanks for sharing your experiences.

 

[camelot23ca]

I always thought the staff bullying thing started out as a culture clash, then spiraled. Though the US and UK aren't too far apart culturally, in my experience, Americans tend to be more direct and less interested in pleasantries in a professional context (though of course there's tremendous individual variation). That gulf is probably even wider for the Palace than the UK as a whole. But Knauf, being American himself, would surely have known that and taken it into account when responding to the situation. Harry's the one who chose to marry someone who'd barely set foot in the UK before taking up royal work, so it really should have been Harry's job to explain these sorts of differences before they blew up. But just going by their reactions to other perceived slights, they seem to consistently view any criticism as an attack on Meghan's race or origins, so something like "I understand XYZ is normal in the US, but Palace staffers are more accustomed to ABC" probably wouldn't have gone over well.

If I'm right (big if!), then I'm not sure it's fair to put most of the blame on Meghan. If Harry was insisting that whatever she was doing was fine, as seems to have been the case, I think think most of the blame goes to him here. To some extent, that's true regardless of whether the initial problems were due to cultural difference or just Meghan being difficult. Meghan has some excuse for not knowing what's acceptable in a professional context that's completely foreign to her. Harry doesn't. If he let his love for Meghan completely override his professional judgment, maybe that's understandable, but I think he only made things worse for her (and himself) in the long term by doing that.

The cultural thing just doesn’t cut it for me. There are thousands of Americans working in various capacities in the UK and just as many British people doing the same in the US. The majority of them adapt without major problems. Meghan went from LA and Toronto to London - the workplace cultures in these three urban centres are very similar. You’d have more of a culture shock going from LA to many other places in the US than you would going from LA to London.

The workplace culture surrounding the BRF is likely somewhat unique, and would require getting used to by anyone who hadn’t grown up in that world. This would include the majority of citizens in the UK, as well as foreigners. But it wouldn’t be like landing on Mars - there are people, there are various offices, there are meetings, there’s paperwork, there’s a schedule, sometimes there’s travel.. the basic framework would be familiar to almost anyone who’s ever been employed.

 

[Heavs]

Jason Knauf is American and worked for RBS. He's seen high pressure work environments. Simon Case (William's private secretary at the time who was also involved) is now the top civil servant in the UK answerable to the PM. He has to be able to deal with 500 different expectations, demands and personalities in a day.

What is being alleged here isn't a simple case of culture clash. "Meghan governed by fear,” claimed one courtier. “So many people said it. Nothing was ever good enough for her. [She] humiliated staff in meetings, [would] shout at them, [would] cut them off email chains — and then demand to know why they hadn’t done anything.”

In the article one staffer alleges she was a "narcissistic sociopath" - rather extreme for misunderstandings and culture clashes.

The archived article is here if anyone hasn't read it:

https://archive.ph/vDCzZ

As for Harry bringing his own reporter. I guess I just don't understand why? Their friendly reporters can write whatever they want to about the day whether they're there or not. Just like other columnists and reporters in the UK won't be there but will analyse it. Unless they want to use footage in any of their upcoming projects or something.

 

[Sandy345]

No staffer should call those epithets. For one thing, said staffer is not a professional psychologist and did not treat the person he called those epithets. This gets into bad territory.

 

[Moran]

No staffer pretends to be a psychologist, as far as I can see. People do call epithets in regards to certain behaviors.

In the case of alleged abuse, the problem isn't how the abusive employer was called AS A REACTION to their abuse.

The employer isn't a victim here.

 

[Sandy345]

Nothing has been proven nor disproven.

 

[Moran]

That's why I said "the alleged". But since the entire discussion is about the claims in a book in a thread about this book, perhaps I didn't even need to.

Nothing has been proven or disproven about the staff either, BTW.

 

[Osipi]

All of this is what I'd deem as things that have happened in the past and were solely internal matters and shouldn't have ever reached the public domain. Now the public is being drawn into what is basically a "he said, she said, they said" situation that will never be totally factualized and resolved as to who was the victim and who was the bully or who took the high road and who took the low road and we're left with "recollections may vary".

All of this could have been avoided and worked out internally had one party decided to just move forward in life and leave what they deemed as "toxic" behind them and look to the future to thrive rather than just survive. This doesn't seem the case though as the intent is to rehash, relive and report on each and every "wrong" done to them and in doing this, they're basically, IMO, hanging themselves with their own rope.

When one throws toxic garbage to the curb and the garbage truck comes and takes it away, you don't see very many people chasing that truck down wanting their garbage back. This, actually, is in effect what the Sussexes are doing each and every time they bring up the past and why they had to "find freedom", escape a toxic environment and focus on that to keep themselves relevant in today's world.

The odd thing is, though, that no matter what they do, it will never change what was nor will they be able to completely step into an alternate reality where they regain the respect, the dignity and the admiration of the court of public opinion.

And so it goes.... on and on and on and on.

 

[camelot23ca]

But the guy who mentioned Meg as driving out two PAs IS an American. So it seems as if he thought she was acting in a bullying fashion.

Yes, as I said, I don’t think the workplace cultures in the US and UK are different enough that Meghan - as an American - would have truly confused about what was appropriate behaviour when it came to issues like how to interact with the staff at KP.

If the description of Meghan’s actions in Jason Knauf’s email is accurate, I think overall people employed in the US and the UK would describe it as bullying and consider it to be unacceptable behaviour. If there was significant variation in opinions I think it would be between industries, not between countries.

 

[TLLK]

Jason Knauf is American and worked for RBS. He's seen high pressure work environments. Simon Case (William's private secretary at the time who was also involved) is now the top civil servant in the UK answerable to the PM. He has to be able to deal with 500 different expectations, demands and personalities in a day.

What is being alleged here isn't a simple case of culture clash. "Meghan governed by fear,” claimed one courtier. “So many people said it. Nothing was ever good enough for her. [She] humiliated staff in meetings, [would] shout at them, [would] cut them off email chains — and then demand to know why they hadn’t done anything.”

In the article one staffer alleges she was a "narcissistic sociopath" - rather extreme for misunderstandings and culture clashes.

The archived article is here if anyone hasn't read it:

https://archive.ph/vDCzZ

As for Harry bringing his own reporter. I guess I just don't understand why? Their friendly reporters can write whatever they want to about the day whether they're there or not. Just like other columnists and reporters in the UK won't be there but will analyse it. Unless they want to use footage in any of their upcoming projects or something.

Thank you Heavs for sharing the link to The Times article. It's interesting to note that Jason Knauf was one of Meghan's most senior advisors who had assisted her with PR and initially was one of her strongest supporters. He'd also helped Prince Harry write the statement regarding the press reaction to the news that he and Meghan were dating.



However at some point it appears that Knauf could no ignore the concerns that some of KP's female staff were sharing with him regarding their interactions with the Duchess of Sussex.

Before that, Knauf had helped Harry to word the fierce anti-media statements that he had framed to try to protect Meghan from press harassment, both as his girlfriend and then as his fiancée. The PR man had taken considerable stick from some of his non-royal contacts who criticised him as being overprotective in fighting the newcomer’s corner. Like so many people in all the palaces, Knauf had started off on Meghan’s side.But as the months went by the American’s feelings became more ambiguous, as numerous colleagues — women whom he greatly respected — continued to bring him stories of what they said they had suffered at Meghan’s hands.
“I can’t stop shaking,” one aide had told a colleague in anticipation of an encounter with Meghan. Another reported that the prospect of confrontation with the duchess had made her “feel sick”. “Emotional cruelty and manipulation”, were the words of a third, “which I guess could also be called bullying.”
The b-word featured prominently in the accounts of several, along with an even more sinister set of initials: PTSD. Post-traumatic stress disorder was a deeply serious condition to allege — flashbacks, nightmares and feelings of deep anxiety — but that was how one complainant said that they had felt.

I can see why Jason Knauf believed that he had a duty to alert HR and to share this with Simon Case. Case then in turn sent the information on to Prince William who determined that splitting the office was the only way forward.


Apologies if this has already been shared but it appears that the verdict in the investigation might not be delivered until 2022.


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...han-bullying-claims-until-next-year-f9q2s0kc2

Buckingham Palace’s investigation into claims that the Duchess of Sussex bullied royal staff is still under way after more than three months, it has emerged.
Results from the highly sensitive inquiry, which is being conducted by an independent law firm, were expected to be announced in the annual Sovereign Grant report to be published this week. But royal sources have confirmed the investigation is “ongoing”.

 

[Moran]

Ah. The new excerpt is in The Times. I now rest assured it's Lacey indeed who's writing this book. Who else would write about the BP's decision to entrust the bullying investigation to an external entity with derision, implying that it should have stayed private and possibly manipulated in the RF members' favour?

 

[Marengo]

Posts that have nothing to do with the topic of this thread have been moved to the Sussex-thread.

Updates of the book can be discussed here. Analysis and opinions about the claims that are made in the book should be taken to the Sussex-thread in the Sussex forum, which you can find here.

 

[AC21091968]

[Mod. note Marengo] - this content has been copied from the Sussex-thread to keep this thread updated. Please discuss these claims in the Sussex-thread, not here.
---

There has been 6 articles in the Times relating to Robert Lacey's updated book.

From the oldest to newest, the first article reported on Robert Lacey, experts and insideres claim that "Charles has no power to stop Archie becoming a prince — or his sister Lilibet a princess — when the Queen dies". Lacey later added that Archie and Lili will have a choice to be called HRH Prince/Princess at age 18 similar to Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor and Viscount Severn.

Battle of Brothers book extract: Archie can wait until 18 to choose if he’ll be prince
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...ntil-18-to-choose-if-hell-be-prince-j5z25flr2
Archived link: https://archive.ph/iM50L#selection-917.41-917.151

The second article is about Robert Lacey's claim that Meghan walked out of an engagement at a market in Fiji due to a "feud" or argument with UN Women.

Meghan walked out of Fiji engagement over feud with UN Women, says Robert Lacey book
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...ith-un-women-says-robert-lacey-book-wns93zw9m
Archived link: https://archive.ph/ww9u0#selection-737.0-737.84

The third article is an extract Robert Lacey's updated book, focusing on the relationship between Charles and Sussexes and Archie's title. It's similar to the first article, except it's coming straight from Lacey's mouth.

What went wrong between Prince Charles and Prince Harry
In his new book, Battle of Brothers, Robert Lacey unpicks the Sussexes’ Oprah interview — and says Meghan was right to cry foul when she discovered her father-in-law might not make Archie a prince
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...ce-harry-battle-of-brothers-extract-2n8j8bmbp
Archived link: https://archive.ph/TVs0Q

The fourth article is another extract from Robert Lacey's updated book. More specifically, it focuses on the diamond earrings controversies. This is third one of the four book extract released on The Times.

Meghan’s diamond earrings: the ugly truth about her wedding gift
Historian Robert Lacey examines what led to the Duchess of Sussex’s inappropriate choice of jewellery after the murder of Jamal Khashoggi
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...e-ugly-truth-about-her-wedding-gift-8vhtwshtz
Archived link: https://archive.ph/2021.06.21-23185...wedding-gift-8vhtwshtz#selection-739.0-739.64

The fifth article is again the (fourth and final) book extract, which is on Prince Philip's funeral. The first two paragraphs were on Prince Philip's admission to hospital

How anger at Harry and Meghan ran deep at Prince Philip’s funeral
Despite outward appearances of reconciliation, ill feeling still pervaded the Duke of Edinburgh’s funeral, writes historian Robert Lacey
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...-ran-deep-at-prince-philips-funeral-t3sxnzzwc
Archived link: https://archive.ph/pLMgM#selection-739.0-739.65

The sixth article is written by Valentine Low releasing Robert Lacey's claim that The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge fear that conversation with the Duke of Sussex will be leaked out.

William and Kate feared private talks with Harry would be leaked
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...te-talks-with-harry-would-be-leaked-ndrmb3klz
Archived link: https://archive.ph/OPp0w#selection-737.0-737.64

As mentioned earlier, there may be some overlap between these Times articles. Some of the book extract showed Lacey being sympathetic to the Sussexes. I do wonder if there is a huge promotion deal between Lacey and The Times.

 

[Marengo]

A ludicrous discussion about font sizes has be deleted by the mod. team from the Sussex-thread. It has shocked the mod. team as it has shown just how obsessive and how toxic the discussion is and how entrenched posters are in their positions. After several years of constant fights we simply can not go on like this.

The mod. team is therefore currently re-assessing the future of the Sussex-discussion in this forum. This thread will remain closed until a decision has been made about if and how this topic can be discussed in the future.

In the mean time do not post any Sussex-related information anywhere else on this forum. It will be considered as an attempt to undermine moderation and will be dealt with accordingly.