"Courtiers, The Hidden Power Behind The Crown" by Valentine Low (2022)

[suztav]

What I don't understand is that H&M during the Oprah interview (I'm pretty certain) mentioned how they have the Queen's cell phone. Why didn't they just communicate w/her that way rather than trying to go through official channels. Same thing with her stating that "the men" didn't permit her to receive psychological counseling? Just call Granny on her cell phone and tell her. JMHO

 

[akina21]

So Charles was (is?) basically similar type of boss as Meghan? And while Meghan is a "nightmare" boss, they tolerate(d?) Charles ...
But it's not surprising, this is a monarchy after all. It operates on hierarchy based on birth order, not fairness nor equality. The first in line to the throne vs the wife of 6th in line, so there you have it, of course they'd be treated differently.

I think with Meghan it was that she didn't understand the rules or didn't want to follow them and then took that out on the staff members who were supposed to enforce rules and guide her through this like they personally wanted to fail her. Charles sound like a demanding boss with a temper who isn't making it personal .

 

[Alison H]

Yes, and I can imagine that he gets very stroppy sometimes, but the salient point is that he doesn't direct his anger at staff members. From what the extracts say, William and Kate are quite relaxed, compared to Charles's intensity. But Harry was yelling at people long before Meghan came along, and then she started yelling at people as well.

It doesn't sound like an easy environment for anyone to have been working in.

 

[Denville]

What I don't understand is that H&M during the Oprah interview (I'm pretty certain) mentioned how they have the Queen's cell phone. Why didn't they just communicate w/her that way rather than trying to go through official channels. Same thing with her stating that "the men" didn't permit her to receive psychological counseling? Just call Granny on her cell phone and tell her. JMHO

Possibly the queen manages her mobile and does not reply to every call.

 

[Moran]

Charles sounds like a "boss" (kind of, an assignor actually) I had once. Everything had to be perfect - OK, I could live with that. But he wanted me to explain every detail of what I was doing and why I was doing it. At some point, I lost it and became rude, telling him that if he wanted to do it instead of me, he could but I couldn't actually fit a number of years I spent studying into an hour to explain the logics of my decisions. He lacked the knowledge about the basics of my work and I told him so. He apologized and didn't repeat the behavior. But such a person can drive you mad, especially if he is your boss indeed. And he could have just stopped working with me indeed. Or thrown me out if I had been his employee. He wasted hours of my time with explanations - that's a quirk of demanding bosses.

From this excerpt, Charles doesn't direct his intensity on staff members which changes the game significantly. But until you realize he doesn't, it's a tough ride.

 

[HRHHermione]

Thanks HRHHermione for posting the archived link to the third extract! ?



Valentine Low certainly was critical of courtiers, royal staff members and in some instances, King Charles III (when he was The Prince of Wales) with the repeated words of "backstabbing", "demanding" and "temper". One may argue that the working environment at Clarence House was the definition of unhealthy competition between staff members. The term "falls under people’s spell" in describing The King reminds me of the quote "Advisors advice, Minister decides", except this time it's the head of the constitutional monarchy against courtiers and outsider instead of elected politicians against civil servants or special advisors.



On a different note, The Times has released an opinion piece (under The Times Leading Articles) on the conflict between the Sussexes and courtiers, after the release of Valentine Low's book extract. The article criticised both the Sussexes and courtiers on handling the situations regarding to Harry & Meghan leaving as working royals. It is interesting how the opinion writers ended on how it would be best for both parties if the Sussexes enjoy private life. I would assume that meant out of the public spotlight away from the celebrity lifestyles.







The Times view on Harry and Meghan’s clashes with courtiers: Royal Retreat

The conduct of the Sussexes made exit from their duties inevitable and desirable

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...lashes-with-courtiers-royal-retreat-lm5mhfsvz

Archived link: https://archive.ph/nlcav

That’s what I walked away from the Times article summarizing their reaction to the book with as well: they are saying it would be better for everyone if the Sussexes tried for actual privacy with some dignity rather than capitalizing on insider royal family knowledge to earn a living. The most important point to me was the one where they say the public servants who staff the monarchy are what keep it viable and senior royal family members who don’t respect that and who won’t follow that advice aren’t suited for a life as working royals.

 

[Erin9]

Yes, and I can imagine that he gets very stroppy sometimes, but the salient point is that he doesn't direct his anger at staff members. From what the extracts say, William and Kate are quite relaxed, compared to Charles's intensity. But Harry was yelling at people long before Meghan came along, and then she started yelling at people as well.



It doesn't sound like an easy environment for anyone to have been working in.

And that’s the thing. Difficult and demanding is one thing- but he doesn’t take it out on staff.

The Sussexes sound like a nightmare to work for. No wonder they had such a revolving door of employees in less than 2 years.

 

[Denville]

Yes, and I can imagine that he gets very stroppy sometimes, but the salient point is that he doesn't direct his anger at staff members. From what the extracts say, William and Kate are quite relaxed, compared to Charles's intensity. But Harry was yelling at people long before Meghan came along, and then she started yelling at people as well.

It doesn't sound like an easy environment for anyone to have been working in.

I think that charles tends to take his temper out on objects

 

[Erin9]

"Courtiers, The Hidden Power Behind The Crown" by Valentine Low (2022)

That’s what I walked away from the Times article summarizing their reaction to the book with as well: they are saying it would be better for everyone if the Sussexes tried for actual privacy with some dignity rather than capitalizing on insider royal family knowledge to earn a living. The most important point to me was the one where they say the public servants who staff the monarchy are what keep it viable and senior royal family members who don’t respect that and who won’t follow that advice aren’t suited for a life as working royals.

Yes- I think they’re saying the Sussexes need to find something to do outside of public life. For everyone’s sake- including theirs. I certainly agree they haven’t been dignified. The vast majority of lifestyle/job options are indeed private.

I think it is interesting that they seem to say that the couriers could have done better in addressing the Sussexes unhappiness- but also conclude that they were unsuited for this life anyway and needed to go. So- there really would be no fixing things or pleasing them. Ever.

My sympathy really doesn’t go much to the Sussexes honestly at this point. I think the Times has more than me. Maybe it’s the 3 years of complaints. The refusal to take any responsibility for anything. Maybe it’s how abominably they treated staff- over and over again. As an employee myself- I feel for them first. Maybe it’s also the idea that some staff believe Meghan didn’t really want it to work. Not sure. But I feel a lot more sympathy for literally everyone else about this mess over them.

 

[Alison H]

I've been wondering all along why Harry didn't try harder to help Meghan fit in. He knew full well that his mother, the British born and bred daughter of an earl, from a family with close ties with royalty, found it difficult, so he must surely have realised that Meghan, a middle-class American woman with no experience whatsoever of royal life, was going to struggle. But, from what Valentine Low's saying, Harry wasn't suited to be a full-time working royal himself, and made his staff's life a misery. If he had that sort of negative attitude to start with, maybe it's no wonder that Meghan doesn't seem even to have tried to fit in.

As Erin said, the Sussexes really need to find something to do. This war of words with one book after another, not to mention all the downright nasty comments they've made on TV shows, can't go on.

 

[hel]

Wasn't Sir Christopher Geidt, her late Majesty's Private Secretary replaced discreetly after an ongoing problem with blocking both Charles and Andrew's access to her? I don't know about anyone else, but a civvie blocking the heir's access to the Queen sure seems both an ill-advised power trip and a stumbling block to open dialogue between the much vaunted 'working' royals and their boss.

Just one example of delusions of grandeur and abuse of power by one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful Courtiers exercising his power behind the Crown.

I don't see that reason for Geidt's ouster in the excerpts from the book, nor in the linked article (which Low also wrote). Could you point me to the source please? Thanks!

 

[FigTree]

New excerpt out this morning:

https://archive.ph/2022.09.25-23131...siders-he-falls-under-peoples-spell-rtjnm5zqd

This one focuses on Charles and his management style with a little bit about William

I don’t think I learnt anything new about Charles here. He has that type of temper and I find him someone with dodging judgement of people. He and a Harry do sound very similar in many ways. And most of the Queens children had quite a temper. I don’t know about Anne. We know Philip had and the Queens father too. Where on earth did they get William fro? Or maybe he is just like his grandmother but in a different time. He’s been known to have a temper as well.

 

[FigTree]

Wasn't Sir Christopher Geidt, her late Majesty's Private Secretary replaced discreetly after an ongoing problem with blocking both Charles and Andrew's access to her? I don't know about anyone else, but a civvie blocking the heir's access to the Queen sure seems both an ill-advised power trip and a stumbling block to open dialogue between the much vaunted 'working' royals and their boss.

Just one example of delusions of grandeur and abuse of power by one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful Courtiers exercising his power behind the Crown.

I don’t think that was it. He just wasn’t really giving these too everything they wanted. Charles has been running the royal family…and William for some time before the Queen died anyway. He got rid and out his own man in.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

I don’t think I learnt anything new about Charles here. He has that type of temper and I find him someone with dodging judgement of people. He and a Harry do sound very similar in many ways. And most of the Queens children had quite a temper. I don’t know about Anne. We know Philip had and the Queens father too. Where on earth did they get William fro? Or maybe he is just like his grandmother but in a different time. He’s been known to have a temper as well.

Yes William has a temper, but we don’t hear stories of staff crying or claims of bullying. Charles is extra, but manageable in some sense.

 

[FigTree]

Yes William has a temper, but we don’t hear stories of staff crying or claims of bullying. Charles is extra, but manageable in some sense.

People have all sorts of temper. It doesn’t mean they take it out on people. He’s probably not like that. Charles has always been…a bit extra. He’s just a unique person. Very like his grandmother, very intense, poor judgement.

 

[HRHHermione]

"Courtiers, The Hidden Power Behind The Crown" by Valentine Low (2022)

Yes William has a temper, but we don’t hear stories of staff crying or claims of bullying. Charles is extra, but manageable in some sense.

Well, and I think what’s obvious but unspoken is that they are vitally important to the monarchy in the way the wife of the second son never could be. Staff may laugh off Charles or William having a temper moment but really struggle with it from someone less important to their work, like Andrew, or in this case, Meghan.

It’s a little bit of a double standard, but not really. A CEO often gets away with things that a junior staffer couldn’t pull.

Plus, staff never had to doubt that Charles and William’s first priority was the monarchy. They may have different ideas but it’s the same goal. That’s different than Meghan.

 

[FigTree]

Well, and I think what’s obvious but unspoken is that they are vitally important to the monarchy in the way the wife of the second son never could be. Staff may laugh off Charles or William having a temper moment but really struggle with it from someone less important to their work, like Andrew, or in this case, Meghan.

It’s a little bit of a double standard, but not really. A CEO often gets away with things that a junior staffer couldn’t pull.

Plus, staff never had to doubt that Charles and William’s first priority was the monarchy. They may have different ideas but it’s the same goal. That’s different than Meghan.

I don’t think bad behaviour or treatment should be taken from anyone no matter who they are. However, people are different and we learn to accept this and if we find peoples mannerisms and tempers non-threatening then we tend to accept them as part of who they are. When they threaten and damage esteem or instil fear that is different.

 

[HRHHermione]

I don’t think bad behaviour or treatment should be taken from anyone no matter who they are. However, people are different and we learn to accept this and if we find peoples mannerisms and tempers non-threatening then we tend to accept them as part of who they are. When they threaten and damage esteem or instil fear that is different.

Oh I completely agree. For example, my dad often loses his temper at inanimate objects, like a dishwasher that’s acting up, but never at people. That’s why Charles and his pen incident made me laugh- it reminded me of my dad, who is totally harmless. He was angry at the pen itself, and you can’t hurt a pen’s feelings. I suspect his temper is more like that, and it’s treated as more humorous than threatening.

These excerpts were about mistreatment of people by Meghan and Harry and that’s not something I can easily excuse.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

People have all sorts of temper. It doesn’t mean they take it out on people. He’s probably not like that. Charles has always been…a bit extra. He’s just a unique person. Very like his grandmother, very intense, poor judgement.

Can’t disagree with this.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Well, and I think what’s obvious but unspoken is that they are vitally important to the monarchy in the way the wife of the second son never could be. Staff may laugh off Charles or William having a temper moment but really struggle with it from someone less important to their work, like Andrew, or in this case, Meghan.

It’s a little bit of a double standard, but not really. A CEO often gets away with things that a junior staffer couldn’t pull.

Plus, staff never had to doubt that Charles and William’s first priority was the monarchy. They may have different ideas but it’s the same goal. That’s different than Meghan.

That’s another way to put it. I didn’t think of it like that.

 

[camelot23ca]

Well, and I think what’s obvious but unspoken is that they are vitally important to the monarchy in the way the wife of the second son never could be. Staff may laugh off Charles or William having a temper moment but really struggle with it from someone less important to their work, like Andrew, or in this case, Meghan.

It’s a little bit of a double standard, but not really. A CEO often gets away with things that a junior staffer couldn’t pull.

Plus, staff never had to doubt that Charles and William’s first priority was the monarchy. They may have different ideas but it’s the same goal. That’s different than Meghan.

I do think that’s all true, but at the same time I wonder if Charles and his team, as well as the team eventually assembled around William himself, would have been more inclined to crack down on any overtly immature or bad tempered behaviour seen in William precisely because, in an official sense, he was important. Whereas Harry may have been more indulged in part because he didn’t matter so much. So William and Harry may have started out with the same amount of temper as children, but it was gradually made clear to William that he needed to have his act together, at the very least in public.

William does seem to be naturally more controlled than either Charles or Harry, and more apt to think before he speaks or acts.

 

[HRHHermione]

I do think that’s all true, but at the same time I wonder if Charles and his team, as well as the team eventually assembled around William himself, would have been more inclined to crack down on any overtly immature or bad tempered behaviour seen in William precisely because, in an official sense, he was important. Whereas Harry may have been more indulged in part because he didn’t matter so much. So William and Harry may have started out with the same amount of temper as children, but it was gradually made clear to William that he needed to have his act together, at the very least in public.



William does seem to be naturally more controlled than either Charles or Harry, and more apt to think before he speaks or acts.

I think that’s another great point and I really hope this book can explore some of that dynamic.

 

[Prinsara]

I do think that’s all true, but at the same time I wonder if Charles and his team, as well as the team eventually assembled around William himself, would have been more inclined to crack down on any overtly immature or bad tempered behaviour seen in William precisely because, in an official sense, he was important. Whereas Harry may have been more indulged in part because he didn’t matter so much. So William and Harry may have started out with the same amount of temper as children, but it was gradually made clear to William that he needed to have his act together, at the very least in public.

William does seem to be naturally more controlled than either Charles or Harry, and more apt to think before he speaks or acts.

I think it's been made extremely clear in many books that William has had it thoroughly impressed on him that he's needed to have and keep his act together, not least of all by meeting frequently with the Queen, but also helped by being naturally responsible and reflective after his bratty initial five-year start or so as a small child. The brat torch passed to Harry, his lesser status, and his somewhat different temperament, but it's also rather heavily implied that everything he ever did wrong got reported simply because he's not William, or even instead of some of William's peccadilloes.

It's pretty difficult to raise your kids as ostensibly equal and yet not hold them to the same standards. It's just one more sad thing about all this, although it also seems like Meghan encourages many of Harry's worst qualities and vice-versa.

 

[MARG]

I don’t think that was it. He just wasn’t really giving these too everything they wanted. Charles has been running the royal family…and William for some time before the Queen died anyway. He got rid and out his own man in.

Erm . . . that would be a definite no! HM moved him out and gave him a very important role not to mention a gong and sent him on his way. I have an idea what he would like to have done with the gong and it isn't nice. On paper, he got a promotion and a lovely new important role but in reality, what really could surpass having the figurative "Kings to the kingdom? He was not a happy chappie and when Charles, in his role of taking over the Duch of Lancaster role from his retired father, told him to vacate his cushy apartment which seems to have come with the job, he moaned about his wife having just changed all the curtains! It was obvious he did not see himself going anywhere fast. Prince Philip's retirement changed a lot of things and that was just one.

Yes William has a temper, but we don’t hear stories of staff crying or claims of bullying. Charles is extra, but manageable in some sense.

No, William is golden, always has been. If you want to work for the future King or perhaps be promoted to work with the present King, you smile, keep your head down and keep on going.

Charles also has a temper but he has had an awfully long time to control it. That people can say he a temper tantrum over a leaking pen just made me want to pull my hair out. The poor man was in mourning and had not even gotten to bury his mother before he was working like a dog doing things constitutional and needed before he could have what we take for granted, private grief.

Being faced with a leaking pen to use on something that is going to be retained as a historical document was not temper but frustration. That his team didn't sweat it tells me that his staff/"Courtiers" know him well and are working for him, not manipulating him.

 

[Erin9]

"Courtiers, The Hidden Power Behind The Crown" by Valentine Low (2022)

Well, and I think what’s obvious but unspoken is that they are vitally important to the monarchy in the way the wife of the second son never could be. Staff may laugh off Charles or William having a temper moment but really struggle with it from someone less important to their work, like Andrew, or in this case, Meghan.

It’s a little bit of a double standard, but not really. A CEO often gets away with things that a junior staffer couldn’t pull.

Plus, staff never had to doubt that Charles and William’s first priority was the monarchy. They may have different ideas but it’s the same goal. That’s different than Meghan.

I think that’s a good point. And very true anywhere you work.

Indeed- we all know what Charles and William’s goal is at the end of the day. Meghan- not so much.

And- as it’s been stated- bits of temper from Charles don’t seem to be aimed at people. It’s not personal. It’s not hitting someone’s self esteem.

The pen bit was the press making a mountain out of a molehill. I can fully get his frustration- between it being a historical document and right after his mother died. No big deal to me. And it’s an inanimate object. I get frustrated with them too. Plus- during a walkabout later- someone handed Charles a pen in case he needed it. He was amused.

Telling someone that: literally if there was anyone else I could get to do this job I would is about as personal as it gets. Particularly when you further humiliate that person by saying it in front of other people. I’m absolutely certain: no one who witnessed that is ever going to forget it. Least of all the person it was aimed at.

 

[hel]

I think the juxtaposition of the Charles/staff piece with the Sussex/staff piece was interesting for two reasons:

One, it really undercut the "lazy palace staff just don't want to work for a demanding American boss" narrative; Charles is clearly just as demanding, long-working, and apt to call on his staff at all hours

Two, regarding Charles and William's temper, as has been pointed out, there is a substantial difference between getting angry and barking generally at circumstances/things/events and getting angry and screaming at people. But more to the point, the approach to push back was night and day. I will happily work for a boss, who grumbles but, when you push back to say "that wasn't appropriate" or "we can't do that", apologizes like in the Charles story. If my boss *ever* said something as viciously cutting to me as "Don't worry, if there were anyone else I could ask to do this, I would", I would quit on the spot.

If that story is an accurate retelling, Meghan should not have staff without some serious introspective work in learning to be a better people manager.

 

[Saragli]

The excerpts on Charles are interesting, but, not entirely enlightening. We have always known him to be demanding, hard on himself and others, and to have a bit of a temper. The "pen gate" was a good example, he lost his temper but it wasn't directed at anyone, and most of the staff seemed pretty relaxed about it. The King is a man of many, many faults - but at heart a good man.

The same can be said of Harry, at heart a good person, but with many many faults. He has unfortunately inherited the worst traits from both of his parents, and after his mothers death, was coddled by the nation, the courtiers, and the nation. He, his family, and everyone else is now paying the price for it.

One thing that sticks out though, whether with the King or the Sussex's, is how much the courtiers really want to do a good job by them and be acknowledged for it. That can be healthy when handled properly, or as we've seen, easily turn into a toxic work environment.

 

[yukari]

I do think that’s all true, but at the same time I wonder if Charles and his team, as well as the team eventually assembled around William himself, would have been more inclined to crack down on any overtly immature or bad tempered behaviour seen in William precisely because, in an official sense, he was important. Whereas Harry may have been more indulged in part because he didn’t matter so much. So William and Harry may have started out with the same amount of temper as children, but it was gradually made clear to William that he needed to have his act together, at the very least in public.

William does seem to be naturally more controlled than either Charles or Harry, and more apt to think before he speaks or acts.

I think some part of it has lot to do with their childhood. Charles was the heir apparent since he's four and it came with huge privilege which leading to his demanding nature, as much as huge expectation which brought this trait of being hard to himself.

What differ William and Charles is their childhood. We know the story about William being his mother's confidant as young kids. He was exposed of those "horror" surrounding his parents marriage breakdown so he learnt about the worst part of being a royals the hard way. I don't blame him if he ends up tighten himself up which makes him appear to have more control (of himself). Luckily he met Catherine, who seems to make him loosen up a bit. (Honestly, between the three, IMO a boss like William is the scariest because when they snap, it would be atomic level of explosion. I had one like this. A big one explosion is always worse than several small ones).

As for Harry, as most posters have pointed out, he'd been cuddled and mostly protected, so in a way it's possible he sort if expected it would be extended to his wife (being cuddled and indulged) hence why he didn't seem to "prepare" her properly.

 

[Queen Claude]

It is difficult to say - when a staff have been with a principle for long enough they accept how it works. There is a better drive towards that goal - as a team. Personally I think most of the problem with the Sussex is that they were working towards a different goal. Harry and Meghan were looking here and the team was looking there. No common viewpoint of what the office should have been working towards. And yes that type of alignment takes time - and is not helped by people leaving.
I was recently asked if the royal offices receive a mandate - if there is a single purpose coming from Charles office down. And yes there is. However the personal approach of the principal need to align to that mandate. Essential the office moves the royal according to the monarch's direction. Not the royal tells their office that this is how they are going to run things and then don't do any coordination with the other offices. I can understand why people think that the Sussex's were a loose cannon - running to crowd pleasing engagements and wanting to do politicized issues. It is just a complete lack of understanding.

I have a different take. In the case of Charles, I do not think that he has had enough time to set a mandate / single purpose. While there were duties, expectations and protocols, I don't think that there was a mandate / single purpose during QEII's reign beyond something broad like service.

I have been critical of the silos that were created during QEII's reign. Charles created his own office during his mother's reign, and IIRC it was motivated by him wanting to do things his way and not have to go through the BP bureaucracy, and because he had Duchy of Cornwall funding, he was able to do so. Years later, Charles set up a court for his sons when they were teenagers, and IIRC, he was motivated by wanting to allow his sons to pursue their interests without being fettered by their father's staffers. Presumably this court was the forerunner of the KP organization.

The BRF have been criticized because for having the three silos and some years ago they merged their communications operations, but then split up again with Charles being the driving factor behind the re-split, IIRC. As previously stated, I have been critical of the silos, but I have to wonder that if things were more centralized, would initiatives like Heads Together, Invictus, Duchy Organics, The Earth Shot Prize, etc. have come together. I think The Prince's Trust was formed before Charles formed his own office, but would it have reached its current scale if Charles had not spun off.

I think that there are dysfunctional things about the way things were run but having adult grandchildren of the monarch will not be a common occurrence. I suspect that going forward that there will be a BP organization and, if there is an adult Duke/Duchess of Cornwall, that they will have their own organization, with presumably some kind of reporting relationship / coordination between the monarch and heir's organizations.

I just don't see Charles setting mandates for his reign and then expecting other royals and courtiers to adhere to that mandate. Yeah he may come up with some catchy mantra that pulls together and reflects values that the principals involved already possess, but I don't think that it is his nature to be too centralized. Plus I think that he is going to have his hands full transforming himself and his organization from the Prince of Wales paradigm into the monarch paradigm, because I do think that they are very different.

I think that unless Harry consigned himself to living a life of quiet desperation, he would have been a challenge to deal with had he remained a senior working royal. Harry left in a messy way and has continued to present challenges to the BRF from another hemisphere, but I don't think that he would have been easy to deal with had he stayed. I think it should also noted that things were in transition in the past few years, so even if you did not have the added complication of Harry getting married, there still would have been a rough road due to the distinction between him and William, which was already a sore spot, becoming more acute as time passed and not less.

To be sure, the Sussexes have shortcomings, but I think that there are lessons to be learned from this experience in handling spares. As much as people state that the monarch and heirs apparent should be paramount, the modern paradigm is just as much if not more royal family-centric as it is monarch - centric (IMO), and given that, should consideration be given to spares who have energy, ideas and popularity?

 

[Alison H]

To be sure, the Sussexes have shortcomings, but I think that there are lessons to be learned from this experience in handling spares. As much as people state that the monarch and heirs apparent should be paramount, the modern paradigm is just as much if not more royal family-centric as it is monarch - centric (IMO), and given that, should consideration be given to spares who have energy, ideas and popularity?

Princess Anne's been doing her own thing for years. I don't think there'd have been any problem with Harry and Meghan doing their own thing as long as they didn't overshadow Charles, Camilla, William and Kate, and as long as they treated staff with courtesy and respect. Harry was doing that with the Invictus Games, and there's no reason that he and Meghan couldn't also have taken up other good causes.

The idea of William, Kate, Harry and Meghan all working together as the Fab Four was never going to work long term, but there's no reason why Harry and Meghan couldn't have used their own energy and ideas, as long as they did so within the Royal Family framework. They just don't seem to have been happy doing that. Which is a great shame, because there are a lot of good causes which could have benefited from their involvement.