The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Royal Highlights > Royal Library
Click Here to Login

Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #541  
Old 06-19-2021, 04:53 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Queens Village,, United States
Posts: 659
He was not there.
__________________

  #542  
Old 06-19-2021, 05:00 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Biographers and journalists are usually "not there" when something takes place. That's why they talk to people and do research.
__________________

  #543  
Old 06-19-2021, 05:03 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leopoldine View Post
Tales of bullying and erratic behavior of royals sell books. My shelves are brimming with books about the BRF, some well-written and some not, and they all contain stories about Charles, Diana, Sarah Ferguson and Andrew acting completely unreasonable with staff. Yelling, screaming, throwing things, all written about by various so-called "royal experts." I take all of the stories, including the Sussex ones, with a grain of salt.

"The Housekeeper's Diary" by Wendy Berry provides some clues as to why a BRF member might get angry -- apparently, staff at Highgrove sat around the staff lounge for hours drinking Charles's wines and liquors while whispering about their employers! If they worked for me, I'd be throwing a few dishes myself.
True there's not a book, TV series or film that doesn't feature some terrible royal behaviour to some servants or subjects. And that includes many books on the BRF's current members. None of that is considered acceptable in work places to day, as we've found in other countries monarchies as well. But it is a favourite to spice books with. Although this particular book was a hagiography of the Sussexes last year.

I am taking things with a pinch of salt. If this was the first we'd heard of it or there was no corroborating evidence (staff did leave, there was visible tension) I would probably be more inclined to dismiss it.

And in this case it was one of the senior staff themselves who asked how they were going to deal with a number of complaints, another American who had previously "been on Meghan's side". Because the BRF had no mechanism to protect its staff from family members, which again isn't surprising when you think about it but should be. Otherwise they might find themselves with their own Waringo Report.

I imagine that there were investigations into whether or not they had any merit or whether Meghan was "justified" in getting very angry with her staff and W&K's staff etc. And if things could be smoothed over or communication could be handled better "lessons could be learned for everyone" before William decided to "throw Harry out" as the book puts it.

But if there really was a toxic atmosphere as this book alleges (and other reports back up, including the Sussexes) then something had to be done for everyone's sake. I doubt all the staff were doing the equivalent of getting drunk at the office but if they were then that's bad too and they should be sacked.
  #544  
Old 06-19-2021, 05:11 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
if staff are sitting around getting drunk there are ways of dealing with it, i.e. sacking them. There's no need to throw dishes. And yes Royals have probably gotten away in the past with temper tantrums, but that sort of behavior isn't going to be tolerated forever. Even "storms that blow over" and are followed by an apology, wont be tolerated any longer....
  #545  
Old 06-19-2021, 05:14 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2021
Location: Boston, United States
Posts: 14
I hope the book has concrete examples to back up some of what is being said in the excerpts here. To describe someone as "narcissistic, sociopathic, unhinged, and damaged goods" is an extremely serious charge to make (and in my view, describing someone as damaged goods is despicable, particularly for anyone who works to destigmatize mental health). We have not seen any examples of the behavior that is being alleged, either in the original Times story or these excerpts. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist but I am not going to jump to conclusions without seeing examples of the alleged behavior. That being said, though, the fact that the Sussexes have not pushed back on this as hard as they have other stories does make me more likely to think there's a story here.
  #546  
Old 06-19-2021, 05:20 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,470
I think there's been a change in society in general regarding attitudes towards bullying. 30 years ago, a child who told an adult that they were being bullied would have been told not to sneak and that they should stand up for themselves, and an adult being bullied in the workplace would have felt that they just had to put up with it. Yes, I'm sure Royals have got away with bad behaviour in the past, but so have an awful lot of other people, and times are different now.
  #547  
Old 06-19-2021, 05:20 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 2,143
Battle of Brothers: William, Harry and the Inside Story of A Family in Tumult

Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO View Post
If Meghan is the bully they claim they are going to eventually have to prove it. The way the media and such dig into these peopleís lives, the truth will come out. Just look at it happening now with various people in the news. You canít hide it. And if she did it will have to answer for her actions.

That said, Iíve yet to see what she did that was bullying. And 5am emails ainít it. So it will be interesting to see it play out because eventually accusations only go so far without solid evidence. And right many donít believe it because the evidence is non existent. It comes across to some that they just had issues taking direction from someone they saw as less than them.

Time will tell.

I thought JKís email was VERY damaging in terms of the bullying claims. Heís a seasoned professional. And an American.
  #548  
Old 06-19-2021, 05:40 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 2,143
Battle of Brothers: William, Harry and the Inside Story of A Family in Tumult

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prinsara View Post
Possibly because giving this story to someone who supported Harry and Meghan makes it look better than giving it to someone who's been against them all along.


That was exactly what I was thinking. I think it makes a lot of sense to give this story to a Sussex supporter. That he decided to run with it speaks volumes IMO.
  #549  
Old 06-19-2021, 05:41 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Queens Village,, United States
Posts: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anna1519 View Post
I hope the book has concrete examples to back up some of what is being said in the excerpts here. To describe someone as "narcissistic, sociopathic, unhinged, and damaged goods" is an extremely serious charge to make (and in my view, describing someone as damaged goods is despicable, particularly for anyone who works to destigmatize mental health). We have not seen any examples of the behavior that is being alleged, either in the original Times story or these excerpts. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist but I am not going to jump to conclusions without seeing examples of the alleged behavior. That being said, though, the fact that the Sussexes have not pushed back on this as hard as they have other stories does make me more likely to think there's a story here.
The thing is if they pushed back they would get heavily criticized by some in the media. IMO. I think a lot of the trouble has been the media and social media some of whom have constantly criticized Meghan and many of the earlier "accusations" were debunked. There have been stories that the Sussexes have ignored, including the engagement ring stories where Meghan was accused of "not liking" the ring Harry gave her and redesigning when it was Harry's idea. Some of the accusations have gone to "that level."
  #550  
Old 06-19-2021, 05:50 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Somewhere, United States
Posts: 2,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandy345 View Post
The thing is if they pushed back they would get heavily criticized by some in the media. IMO.."


If thereís one thing the Sussexes have had no qualms about in the last almost 2 years, itís pushing back when they want to.

Harry just threatened legal action over what IMO was a very minor point.
  #551  
Old 06-19-2021, 05:55 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Location: N/A, Bulgaria
Posts: 441
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erin9 View Post
If thereís one thing the Sussexes have had no qualms about in the last almost 2 years, itís pushing back when they want to.

Harry just threatened legal action over what IMO was a very minor point.
They might actually be discovering right now how wise the politics of never denying negative stories has been.

Why haven't they sued yet? Surely Lilibet's naming isn't a more serious matter than a bullying accusation by a respected historian in a serious outlet? That's what happens when you start denying or worse, suing over matters that look frivolous compared to others that remain "unseen" by the sue-happy couple.

Meghan wanted the BP to defend her but now that she's free of their clutches, she isn't defending herself. She wanted her voice back - well, now she has it but apart from the Oprah interview, she's only been authorizing others to speak for her - Janina, Omid, who's next?

IMO, Lacey's publication is worse than literally anything else.
  #552  
Old 06-19-2021, 06:16 PM
Sunnystar's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oregon, United States
Posts: 629
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandy345 View Post
It should not be assumed that Meghan is "guilty." There was tension between the two couples. And before that Will and Harry did not always get along (even before they chose their respective spouses). I think had Diana been around, she would have had words with both her sons when they went through phases of not getting along. There was also tension before the Meghan and Harry wedding because William apparently wanted to break them up. ANd if this allegation of "bullying" took place at all, wouldn't there be some mediation by the Queen herself rather than "courtiers" rushing to the media to complain. Something off about this. It seems to me that if peace was to be restored and resolutions to conflict, the courtiers would not be permitted to leak stories to the media. I don't believe she treated the staff "badly," there are people she had worked for who said she never "bullied' people. Why is it assumed that Meghan is "guilty." The allegation of Kate saying Meghan had an agenda, does not say much good about Kate. I agree about earlier posters that the two couples should not have been expected to be "teamed." I think there is enough work to go around so couples don't have to team up. If there had been tension, I think the separate venues should have been setup sooner rather than later.
First off - I don't think Diana would have "had words" with her sons during their phases of not getting along. Like any other adult with siblings, she would have recognized that those relationships go through ups and downs. And, like most intelligent, intuitive parents, she would have recognized that it wasn't her place to interfere in her sons' relationship. Certainly, I'm sure it would have upset her but I doubt she would have "had words" or somehow forced them to patch things up.

Second - You really should read the excerpt that was printed in The Times today.

Do you have any links to these reports that William wanted H&M to break up before the wedding? I don't recall seeing anything of the sort in the run up to the wedding after the engagement was announced. Yes, there are reports (and the excerpt from Lacey's update includes this) that William was hesitant about Meghan when Harry first started dating her but he put those concerns aside until he was given the dossier about the bullying issues in their joint office.

Third - the "courtiers" didn't rush to the media to complain about the bullying when it was apparently happening. There were some light rumors, which only started gaining traction in the media after the Sussexes announced their HIHO plan; and none of the courtiers/staff were willing to speak to any media in any sort of official/on the record way until this past winter when Valentine Low published his article for The Times.

Fourth - The Cambridge & Sussex office at KP wasn't being paid for by The Queen - it was being paid for by Charles, out of the Duchy of Cornwall funds. If anyone should have been brought in to "mediate", it should have been him, but I suppose William did think that he could handle this and keep it from blowing up or going any further by having a brotherly chat with Harry.

Fifth - Again, I cannot emphasize how much you need to read the actual article. Kate was not accused, at any point in the Lacey excerpt, of thinking that Meghan "had an agenda" - only that she had "been wary" of Meghan from the beginning. Make of that what you will. You think that it says nothing good about Kate. Me? I think it shows she is a great judge of character.

Sixth - In retrospect, it probably would have been wiser, when William & Kate got married, to have separated Harry's staff/support from the Cambridges, and had him remain under the Clarence House umbrella while they were established at Kensington Palace. It isn't a matter of the amount of work available but simply because it would have made clear the delineation between William's future path and Harry's future path long before Meghan entered the picture.
  #553  
Old 06-19-2021, 06:41 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunnystar View Post
First off - I don't think Diana would have "had words" with her sons during their phases of not getting along. Like any other ahe had "been wary" of Meghan from the beginning. Make of that what you will. You think that it says nothing good about Kate. Me? I think it shows she is a great judge of character.

Sixth - In retrospect, it probably would have been wiser, when William & Kate got married, to have separated Harry's staff/support from the Cambridges, and had him remain under the Clarence House umbrella while they were established at Kensington Palace. It isn't a matter of the amount of work available but simply because it would have made clear the delineation between William's future path and Harry's future path long before Meghan entered the picture.
I did think at the time when they split, that it was perhaps a sign that Will and Harry werne't getting on so well. But as I recall Harry was still in the army, wasnt he when Will got married, so it was probably eaiser to leave him iwhtin the same office as Will and separate them later.
  #554  
Old 06-19-2021, 07:16 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2021
Location: Boston, United States
Posts: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandy345 View Post
The thing is if they pushed back they would get heavily criticized by some in the media. IMO. I think a lot of the trouble has been the media and social media some of whom have constantly criticized Meghan and many of the earlier "accusations" were debunked. There have been stories that the Sussexes have ignored, including the engagement ring stories where Meghan was accused of "not liking" the ring Harry gave her and redesigning when it was Harry's idea. Some of the accusations have gone to "that level."
Oh, I agree that they would be criticized by the media - that seems inevitable no matter what they do. But I can't help but feel that if this story was one hundred percent incorrect, they would have immediately taken legal action, regardless of the reaction from the media. I'll be interested to see what the rest of the book updates say.
  #555  
Old 06-19-2021, 07:23 PM
Royalist.in.NC's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Location: Nowheresville, United States
Posts: 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Im not sure what you mean. Royals deal directly with staff and some of these rows seem to have been iwht very senior staff.. who would be working closely with tehir royal.. not the young woman who opens the post.....
Yes, these were Personal Assistants and communications folk, not the cook and cleaner
  #556  
Old 06-19-2021, 07:43 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,661
For those who diminish or don't recall the bullying allegations, here is a helpful article. The fact that the royal family is looking into them indicates clearly that it isn't just a media obsession but something that took place - leading to a letter by trusted advisor Jason Knauf to his boss Simon Case which more recently led to the palace looking into the issue of 'how to deal with problematic royals' from an HR perspective.
  #557  
Old 06-19-2021, 08:19 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Queens Village,, United States
Posts: 659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunnystar View Post
First off - I don't think Diana would have "had words" with her sons during their phases of not getting along. Like any other adult with siblings, she would have recognized that those relationships go through ups and downs. And, like most intelligent, intuitive parents, she would have recognized that it wasn't her place to interfere in her sons' relationship. Certainly, I'm sure it would have upset her but I doubt she would have "had words" or somehow forced them to patch things up.

Second - You really should read the excerpt that was printed in The Times today.

Do you have any links to these reports that William wanted H&M to break up before the wedding? I don't recall seeing anything of the sort in the run up to the wedding after the engagement was announced. Yes, there are reports (and the excerpt from Lacey's update includes this) that William was hesitant about Meghan when Harry first started dating her but he put those concerns aside until he was given the dossier about the bullying issues in their joint office.

Third - the "courtiers" didn't rush to the media to complain about the bullying when it was apparently happening. There were some light rumors, which only started gaining traction in the media after the Sussexes announced their HIHO plan; and none of the courtiers/staff were willing to speak to any media in any sort of official/on the record way until this past winter when Valentine Low published his article for The Times.

Fourth - The Cambridge & Sussex office at KP wasn't being paid for by The Queen - it was being paid for by Charles, out of the Duchy of Cornwall funds. If anyone should have been brought in to "mediate", it should have been him, but I suppose William did think that he could handle this and keep it from blowing up or going any further by having a brotherly chat with Harry.

Fifth - Again, I cannot emphasize how much you need to read the actual article. Kate was not accused, at any point in the Lacey excerpt, of thinking that Meghan "had an agenda" - only that she had "been wary" of Meghan from the beginning. Make of that what you will. You think that it says nothing good about Kate. Me? I think it shows she is a great judge of character.

Sixth - In retrospect, it probably would have been wiser, when William & Kate got married, to have separated Harry's staff/support from the Cambridges, and had him remain under the Clarence House umbrella while they were established at Kensington Palace. It isn't a matter of the amount of work available but simply because it would have made clear the delineation between William's future path and Harry's future path long before Meghan entered the picture.
Diana was a hands on parent. She probably would have intervened and not sat back and watched the relationship between her sons deteriorate. Perhaps had she been around, the rift would not have happened. But this is all speculation.

William can have all the brotherly chats but IMO he was acting like he was "in charge." Only HM can approve marriages, I think William was heavy handed about advising Harry.
  #558  
Old 06-19-2021, 08:47 PM
Sunnystar's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oregon, United States
Posts: 629
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandy345 View Post
Diana was a hands on parent. She probably would have intervened and not sat back and watched the relationship between her sons deteriorate. Perhaps had she been around, the rift would not have happened. But this is all speculation.

William can have all the brotherly chats but IMO he was acting like he was "in charge." Only HM can approve marriages, I think William was heavy handed about advising Harry.
Care to address any of the other wildly inaccurate assumptions you threw out there regarding the article that I pointed out?

To be honest, being such an involved, hands-on parent is why I think Diana would have given her sons wide berth as adults to work through their relationship issues - she would have wanted to maintain her own good relationship with each of her children and, my guess is, exercised a lighter hand than would be indicated by your "had words". But, perhaps that's just a misinterpretation on my part because "had words" is synonymous, to me, with "reading them the riot act" and not tolerating any falling out/distance/space in the sibling relationship.

Of course, had Diana been alive, chances are that Harry wouldn't have the highly distorted view of the press that he does and, possibly, not have faced as many mental health challenges as he has faced in life.

The fact is, William will be the CEO of the BRF in time and you can think its heavy-handed but he has to look out for that future and the monarchy's wellbeing, even ahead of his own brother but especially when his brother and SIL are reportedly behaving in a manner that could destroy the monarchy.
  #559  
Old 06-19-2021, 08:59 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,417
Obviously Lacey has been speaking to people at KP and someone in Williamís circle as well. However he may not be so sure of things as is estimated. This appears to me to be a definite caveat.

?I have never met Jason Knauf. What you have just read is based upon the published accusations that Knauf set down on paper ? refuted as ?defamatory?, it must be stressed again, and ?based on misleading and harmful information? in the view of the Duchess of Sussex?s lawyers. It also relies upon William?s personal account of these events to one of his friends who then spoke to this author.?


Also itís notable that the two PAís in the Knauf email to Case asked for their complaints to be withdrawn and go no further once they heard Knauf was acting on it.
  #560  
Old 06-19-2021, 09:04 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 5,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
For those who diminish or don't recall the bullying allegations, here is a helpful article. The fact that the royal family is looking into them indicates clearly that it isn't just a media obsession but something that took place - leading to a letter by trusted advisor Jason Knauf to his boss Simon Case which more recently led to the palace looking into the issue of 'how to deal with problematic royals' from an HR perspective.
Thank you for sharing this link. I am pleased that the Palace is finally being compelled to investigate accusations of bullying by "the principals." Staff should have a clear set of protocol on how to share their concerns with HR. Looking forward to reading the outcome of the investigation and the recommendations.
__________________

Closed Thread

Tags
duke of cambridge, duke of sussex, family life


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Inside Monaco: Playground of the Rich sophie25 The Electronic Domain 15 06-22-2020 06:03 PM
"The Windsors: Inside the Royal Dynasty" eya The Electronic Domain 10 02-19-2020 11:26 PM
"The Monarchy Inside" (2010) - DR Documentary on Working Lives of Danish Royal Family Paty The Electronic Domain 184 06-19-2015 03:36 PM




Popular Tags
america archie mountbatten-windsor asia birth britain britannia british british royal family buckingham palace camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house colorblindness commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels customs duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family life fashion and style gemstones george vi gradenigo harry and meghan hello! henry viii highgrove hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs japan japanese imperial family japan history kensington palace king edward vii lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists monarchy mongolia names nara period pless politics prince harry queen elizabeth ii royal ancestry solomon j solomon spanish royal family st edward sussex suthida thai royal family tradition united states of america wales welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:35 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×