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

[TLLK]

I’ve just finished reading Courtiers, and I was very impressed with it overall. Because it focuses more on the people who work for the Royal Family and less on the family members, it feels like a fresh take compared to previous royal books. It’s almost a work about organizational behavior- how people work within an organization, shaping it and being shaped by it- than a traditional royal book.

I think the juiciest bits were in the extracts, which is usually the case, but the entire book is certainly worth a read. It’s not strictly chronological, so I sometimes had to go back and refresh my memory on a detail or two, but I came away with a few takeaways:

1) The last ten years of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II’s reign were quite frustrating for outsiders- including those at Clarence House and Kensington Palace- because it was probably the time during her reign when she (and therefore her courtiers) were most resistant to change. I think that makes a lot of sense- change is much harder on someone in their nineties than it is on younger people.

2) The Prince of Wales (Prince William, for clarity) comes off as an extremely capable and levelheaded executive who is respected by his staff and is often a positive influence. That bodes very well for the future. There’s very little about Catherine in this book, and the way it is presented makes it sound like she is extremely undemanding and quite happy to take advice and recommendations. It also repeats the oft-stated theme of her as a peacemaker who was able to get the two brothers on the same page when their interests overlapped.

3) There are certainly a lot of anonymous sources used, but it is often about very specific things and is directly referenced as an author interview. Direct quotes are used often and sound credible. In the acknowledgments, the author states more than 100 interviews with current and former members of staff across all royal households were conducted as research.

4) There is a chapter about frustrations King Charles experienced as a young man and how he didn’t always handle them well and it struck me as something that could be written exactly about Prince Harry today. There are more parallels between the two men than I would have expected before I read this book.

5) There’s quite a complimentary line about Princess Beatrice in the chapter about Prince Andrew, and that was nice to read. As always, Prince Andrew comes off as a boorish and rude man who is obsessed with status, often unprepared, and difficult to work with. I honestly ended up feeling a little sorry for him- he comes off as quite unhappy.

6) Social media had a very detrimental effect on Prince Harry long before he met Meghan. He seems to have succumbed to the Twitter mentality that treats things there as much more serious than they are and he wanted to respond to every little slight long before he met Meghan. I hope one day he is able to find some peace from that and learn to care a lot less about what other people think of him. Meghan comes off as a difficult character, as always. But I do think Valentine Low tried very hard to be fair.

Thank you again HRH Hermione for sharing your thoughts.

Your earlier post about Diana believing that Patrick Jehpson had betrayed her was so very sad. The Panorama Interview should be permanently shelved.


I'm so sorry for Harry that had been negatively impacted by social media for so long.

 

[Alison H]

After the death of Caroline Flack, who was a friend of Harry's at one time, there was a campaign for everyone to be nicer on social media. Unfortunately, it didn't work. Anyone at all well-known seems to get grief from trolls on social media - royals, politicians, TV/film stars, sports players, everyone. It's horrible. The only way to deal with it is to ignore it, but Harry doesn't seem able to do that.

 

[HRHHermione]

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

After the death of Caroline Flack, who was a friend of Harry's at one time, there was a campaign for everyone to be nicer on social media. Unfortunately, it didn't work. Anyone at all well-known seems to get grief from trolls on social media - royals, politicians, TV/film stars, sports players, everyone. It's horrible. The only way to deal with it is to ignore it, but Harry doesn't seem able to do that.

That’s really it- social media is almost built for cruelty and to be someone in the public eye, you either need to be able to shrug it off and realize it says very little about you as a person or you need to not interact with it at all personally, leaving any needed public presence to a PR agency.

It shouldn’t be that way, but companies have persistently failed to deal with this well, and a little of it is not having the will to do so and a lot of it is that it’s a really complex problem to solve.

This book made it clear that Harry was affected by it and that Meghan was too- that they were both constantly on Twitter and reading tabloid comments, and I think that would hurt or upset anyone.

I also wanted to add- as horrible as Meghan’s behavior was to her staff and as hostile as she was to the palace system from the beginning, her behavior was modeled on her husband’s and it was his job to introduce her into his way of life. I’ve come to believe so much of what happened was unavoidable, simply because Harry rushed this relationship so hard and was not in the right headspace himself to help her learn.

 

[FigTree]

That’s really it- social media is almost built for cruelty and to be someone in the public eye, you either need to be able to shrug it off and realize it says very little about you as a person or you need to not interact with it at all personally, leaving any needed public presence to a PR agency.

It shouldn’t be that way, but companies have persistently failed to deal with this well, and a little of it is not having the will to do so and a lot of it is that it’s a really complex problem to solve.

This book made it clear that Harry was affected by it and that Meghan was too- that they were both constantly on Twitter and reading tabloid comments, and I think that would hurt or upset anyone.

I also wanted to add- as horrible as Meghan’s behavior was to her staff and as hostile as she was to the palace system from the beginning, her behavior was modeled on her husband’s and it was his job to introduce her into his way of life. I’ve come to believe so much of what happened was unavoidable, simply because Harry rushed this relationship so hard and was not in the right headspace himself to help her learn.

I think this. I think he was desperate to secure her and a combination of her wanting to trap the big price and him being in general desperate to lock her down never let reality in to the light at all. It was just a disaster. She had wildly unrealistic expectations and he didn’t take the trouble to disabuse her.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

I think this. I think he was desperate to secure her and a combination of her wanting to trap the big price and him being in general desperate to lock her down never let reality in to the light at all. It was just a disaster. She had wildly unrealistic expectations and he didn’t take the trouble to disabuse her.

This perfectly describes the situation of those two IMO.

 

[Leopoldine]

I ordered my copy of Courtiers today. It's on sale at Book Depository.

Patrick Kidd relayed a funny little anecdote from the book in his Times Diary column. It was about HM The Queen Mother's private secretary. This cheered me as I always thought that household was a fun court.

 

[HRHHermione]

I ordered my copy of Courtiers today. It's on sale at Book Depository.

Patrick Kidd relayed a funny little anecdote from the book in his Times Diary column. It was about MH The Queen Mother's private secretary. This cheered me as I always thought that household was a fun court.

Oh yes, the section of the book about the Queen Mother’s household is a lot of fun because later in her life she was all about fun.

 

[Leopoldine]

I received the book, and I'm enjoying it very much. It's very engrossing. I get a much better sense of the people entrusted with these demanding jobs. They certainly aren't faceless grey suits!

 

[SirGyamfi1]

I’ve just finished reading Courtiers, and I was very impressed with it overall. Because it focuses more on the people who work for the Royal Family and less on the family members, it feels like a fresh take compared to previous royal books. It’s almost a work about organizational behavior- how people work within an organization, shaping it and being shaped by it- than a traditional royal book.

I think the juiciest bits were in the extracts, which is usually the case, but the entire book is certainly worth a read. It’s not strictly chronological, so I sometimes had to go back and refresh my memory on a detail or two, but I came away with a few takeaways:

1) The last ten years of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II’s reign were quite frustrating for outsiders- including those at Clarence House and Kensington Palace- because it was probably the time during her reign when she (and therefore her courtiers) were most resistant to change. I think that makes a lot of sense- change is much harder on someone in their nineties than it is on younger people.

2) The Prince of Wales (Prince William, for clarity) comes off as an extremely capable and levelheaded executive who is respected by his staff and is often a positive influence. That bodes very well for the future. There’s very little about Catherine in this book, and the way it is presented makes it sound like she is extremely undemanding and quite happy to take advice and recommendations. It also repeats the oft-stated theme of her as a peacemaker who was able to get the two brothers on the same page when their interests overlapped.

3) There are certainly a lot of anonymous sources used, but it is often about very specific things and is directly referenced as an author interview. Direct quotes are used often and sound credible. In the acknowledgments, the author states more than 100 interviews with current and former members of staff across all royal households were conducted as research.

4) There is a chapter about frustrations King Charles experienced as a young man and how he didn’t always handle them well and it struck me as something that could be written exactly about Prince Harry today. There are more parallels between the two men than I would have expected before I read this book.

5) There’s quite a complimentary line about Princess Beatrice in the chapter about Prince Andrew, and that was nice to read. As always, Prince Andrew comes off as a boorish and rude man who is obsessed with status, often unprepared, and difficult to work with. I honestly ended up feeling a little sorry for him- he comes off as quite unhappy.

6) Social media had a very detrimental effect on Prince Harry long before he met Meghan. He seems to have succumbed to the Twitter mentality that treats things there as much more serious than they are and he wanted to respond to every little slight long before he met Meghan. I hope one day he is able to find some peace from that and learn to care a lot less about what other people think of him. Meghan comes off as a difficult character, as always. But I do think Valentine Low tried very hard to be fair.

For (4) it’s very true, but a lot of people don’t realize that for Charles. Most people give Harry the benefit of the doubt or be understanding to him in that situation over Charles. The difference is that Charles had a harder situation because he was the eldest son and had far more pressures.

 

[Leopoldine]

I finished "Courtiers" and I think HRHHermione's list of takeaways is very on-point.

The book isn't very complimentary of Sir Clive Alderton, The King's private secretary. From what I could surmise, he had a decent working relationship with Simon Case, formerly William's private secretary and now Cabinet Secretary. I don't know yet who Rishi Sunak's private secretary will be, but that will comprise the triumverate who are said to run the country.

Sir Clive didn't go to a posh school or any university, has no military or business experience, and has a CV that is entirely diplomatic and foreign service experience. That shows hard work and dedication. I think Lord Altrincham would approve!

 

[camelot23ca]

I just finished the book. It was an enjoyable read! Contrary to the popular image of the dull grey suits, there have been many big personalities who have held these jobs; a few of them could carry an entire book on their own.

I thought it was interesting (and funny) when they spoke about various royals sending “their people” to have what are, at heart, family conversations. Although I was confused when the author used William texting Harry in order to find a time to meet, and Harry refusing when he found out William would need to notify one of his staff members so that his schedule could be cleared, as an example of how the family members don’t communicate directly with each other. William was planning to cancel work in order to attend to a family emergency and, like most people, couldn’t realistically do that without notifying a colleague. The episode was an example of how broken the relationship between Harry and the Kensington Palace staff had become, but neither brother was trying to avoid discussing things face to face. But that was the only part of the book that seemed off to me - the rest was well sourced, well written, and fun to read.

What I took away from the book was how high functioning the senior staff members need to be in many different areas in order to do their jobs well. They need all the organizational and cognitive skills you’d expect for people working at that level in any area of government or industry, along with higher than average “soft” skills, or people skills, in order to manage their employer and the unique family dynamics that come with him or her.

 

[Somebody]

Apparently, this book wil hit the shelves in Canada this week, so the author gave an interview:

Most interesting to me was his claim that indeed in the days of Charles and Diana as well as when Camilla was trying to rehabilitate her image, disparaging leaks did occur [for the latter especially her communications team was responsible and he doesn't think she is completely blameless in that respect], but he also insists that William doesn't operate that way.

 

[HRHHermione]

A new excerpt has been released that will be included in the paperback version of the book. It contains some information about the royal household after the Queen’s death.

To me, the most interesting part is that it credits the Princess of Wales with directly influencing the strategy of how the monarchy responded to the Oprah interview.

https://archive.is/2023.06.30-18085...c?shareToken=ac38509ffdb60fa65783016666e0380b

 

[Tatiana Maria]

A new excerpt has been released that will be included in the paperback version of the book. It contains some information about the royal household after the Queen’s death.

To me, the most interesting part is that it credits the Princess of Wales with directly influencing the strategy of how the monarchy responded to the Oprah interview.

https://archive.is/2023.06.30-18085...c?shareToken=ac38509ffdb60fa65783016666e0380b

I also found interesting, in regards to the extract's reporting on those events, that the then Duke of Cambridge's private secretary Jean-Christophe Gray (who is not exactly a household name even for British royal watchers) was responsible for the phrase which was widely praised as a masterstroke of public relations, that Queen Elizabeth II insisted on postponing work on a response for a whole day, and that "senior officials" were afraid of "ril[ing] Harry and Meghan" with the response.

[...] A draft statement was ready by 2pm on Monday. Much to the frustration of the media, however, the palace remained silent. One insider said, “One of the reasons was that the late Queen was adamant that she was going to watch the programme first.” And she was going to watch it with the rest of the population, on ITV on Monday evening.

The next day, the serious negotiations began over the official response. [...]

While they were as concerned as anyone about not getting into a tit-for-tat with Harry and Meghan, William and Kate were clear which side of the debate they were on. “They wanted it toughened up a bit,” said the insider. “They were both of one mind that we needed something that said that the institution did not accept a lot of what had been said.

“He said, ‘It is really important that you guys come up with the right way of making sure that we are saying that this does not stand.’ She was certainly right behind him on it.”

While some have attributed “recollections may vary” to Alderton, more than one source has said that the author was in fact Jean-Christophe Gray, William’s new private secretary, who had been in post for less than three weeks. At least two senior officials in other households were against its inclusion, because they feared that it would rile Harry and Meghan. But once the phrase had been added to the draft, it was — according to another source — the Duchess of Cambridge who pressed home the argument that it should remain. “It was Kate who clearly made the point, ‘History will judge this statement and unless this phrase or a phrase like it is included, everything that they have said will be taken as true.’ ”

The four-sentence statement was eventually released just before 5.30pm on Tuesday. It said, “The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan. The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. While some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately. Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members.”

 

[Curryong]

To me it’s the other portions of this short statement that are often forgotten.



?The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan. The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. While some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately. Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members.?

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

 

[HRHHermione]

To me it’s the other portions of this short statement that are often forgotten.



?The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan. The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. While some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately. Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members.?

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

Well, yes. It’s the only interesting part of the statement. The rest was pro forma.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

To me it’s the other portions of this short statement that are often forgotten.

The "recollections may vary" sentence was understandably the most memorable and dissected line, but the sentence on race was also much commented on in the media and by members of the public, including in the latest book extract.

As well as Gray’s memorable phrase, the statement was notable for two other things. One was the informality and affection with which it referred to Harry and Meghan, rather than the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. The other was the fact that it dared to confront the issue of race. A few days later, Prince William attacked the issue head on when, in response to a television reporter, he said, “We are very much not a racist family.”

 

[Tatiana Maria]

These paragraphs from the extract were interesting:

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

[...]

[William's] second private secretary, Miguel Head, was the son of a post office clerk. And when William wanted to check on the school background of his new communications secretary, it was not to confirm that he had gone to Eton, it was to make sure that he had been educated at a comprehensive school.

 

[HRHHermione]

These paragraphs from the extract were interesting:

I have to say, as someone who is currently studying organizational behavior and management, the flat structure described at the palace would be difficult to navigate, full of partisan infighting, and risk averse.

That being said- sometimes that is a feature, not a bug. Part of why the monarchy has survived is because it has grown and changed, but never at a pace that overtakes societal growth and change. I don’t know that I would argue that making change at the palace happen faster would necessarily service the family or the public better.

 

[Erin9]

Well, yes. It’s the only interesting part of the statement. The rest was pro forma.

That’s it exactly. There’s a reason why “recollections may vary” is the part people remember. And it was brilliant.

Somehow- I’m not surprised that Catherine did play a big role in helping craft what the message needed to be. I think she’s somewhat underestimated.

 

[Heavs]

Well, yes. It’s the only interesting part of the statement. The rest was pro forma.

Well, yes. It's an extremely polite way of say "liar, liar pants on fire". Which most people recognised as such.

I do also think there's a little bit of that in "we're sorry to hear...." ie "you didn't tell us this at the time" but otherwise it's a standard statement.

I would not be particularly surprised if it is true that Catherine argued for it's inclusion. She was personally named and attacked by Meghan and we know that story has other view points. We already knew she isn't demure BTS although she is more reserved in public.

 

[Kataryn]

To me it’s the other portions of this short statement that are often forgotten.



?The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan. The issues raised, particularly that of race, are concerning. While some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately. Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members.?

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

And to consider the whole message, it's just that it seems to set the tone while it is at its base a comment one should add on any report about the going-ons behind palace doors: what we (as in us, the people) get to know is, even if true, just a part of the whole story because the "recollections may vary". We may read this book or that, read this article and that, form our own opinion, but at the end, it's all "your milage may vary" or YMMV.

 

[Lilyflo]

I have to say, as someone who is currently studying organizational behavior and management, the flat structure described at the palace would be difficult to navigate, full of partisan infighting, and risk averse.

I wonder how flat it really is. The monarch is above everyone, the Lord Chamberlain is above the private sec, the keeper of the PP and the master of the household but regardless of any official structure (flat or otherwise), I suspect the real power structure is determined by the degree of influence and personal interaction one has with the monarch. It's entirely possible that the monarch's spouse, children or siblings wield more 'soft power' than any courtier but the opposite might be true in that one particular courtier could have the monarch's ear more than anyone else.

 

[tommy100]

I can certainly imagine Catherine and William wanting the statement to have something in it making clear they don't agree with all Harry and Meghan said, alot of the untruths were aimed at them.

I think the advice Her Late Majesty got from father about not letting one person have too much power is spot on. It is clear that the current management structure does that, in theory the one person in charge is the Lord Chamberlain but that is a part time role so takes some of the power away. Effectively each person is in charge of one department but no one has too much power outside of that.

 

[camelot23ca]

I wonder how flat it really is. The monarch is above everyone, the Lord Chamberlain is above the private sec, the keeper of the PP and the master of the household but regardless of any official structure (flat or otherwise), I suspect the real power structure is determined by the degree of influence and personal interaction one has with the monarch. It's entirely possible that the monarch's spouse, children or siblings wield more 'soft power' than any courtier but the opposite might be true in that one particular courtier could have the monarch's ear more than anyone else.

For each new reign, I suspect how well this kind of system functions is very dependent on the personality and style of the Prince of Wales. The monarch is the monarch, always, but the PoW has a very prominent role and doesn’t depend on the monarch for funding. There’s nothing stopping them from using the money and whatever other advantages they may have (which would generally include a young, popular family) in order to advance themselves and their own personal causes at the expense of the monarch. In that scenario a more hierarchical structure where one person does have enough power over everyone’s staff to shut things down might be best. On the other hand, a flat management structure should work if the PoW makes it clear to his or her staff that everyone ultimately works for the current King or Queen and they need to plan and regulate themselves accordingly.

 

[Somebody]

For each new reign, I suspect how well this kind of system functions is very dependent on the personality and style of the Prince of Wales. The monarch is the monarch, always, but the PoW has a very prominent role and doesn’t depend on the monarch for funding. There’s nothing stopping them from using the money and whatever other advantages they may have (which would generally include a young, popular family) in order to advance themselves and their own personal causes at the expense of the monarch. In that scenario a more hierarchical structure where one person does have enough power over everyone’s staff to shut things down might be best. On the other hand, a flat management structure should work if the PoW makes it clear to his or her staff that everyone ultimately works for the current King or Queen and they need to plan and regulate themselves accordingly.

This particular part of the story was not about the competition between the different courts but about how the monarch's court is organized. Within Charles's court there are several 'leading figures'. William's court is easier in that it is clearly his private secretary who is in charge.