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.
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 people’s lives, the truth will come out. Just look at it happening now with various people in the news. You can’t hide it. And if she did it will have to answer for her actions.
That said, I’ve yet to see what she did that was bullying. And 5am emails ain’t it. So it will be interesting to see it play out because eventually accusations only go so far without solid evidence. And right many don’t 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.
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.
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.."
They might actually be discovering right now how wise the politics of never denying negative stories has been.If there’s one thing the Sussexes have had no qualms about in the last almost 2 years, it’s pushing back when they want to.
Harry just threatened legal action over what IMO was a very minor point.
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.
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.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.
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."
Yes, these were Personal Assistants and communications folk, not the cook and cleanerIm 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.....
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.
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.
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.
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.
IME, bullying creates a climate of fear and the bulled often dont want to pursue a complaint because they fear that it wont work out well for them, that they will be seen as weak, that the bully will be upheld and will then find ways to make life even more difficult for them.. or that they will find it hard to get another job. It is not that they fear they themslelves have over reacted but that they fear that taking action will only worsen a bad situation,Oh, it is certainly notable, but not because of the reason you seem to be implying - that there was no substance to their complaints.
One, there were more than two KP staffers who left the Sussex team and not all of them asked their their complaints be withdrawn/buried when they found out Knauf was trying to have the issue addressed higher up.
Second, we don't know why those staffers asked to have their complaints withdrawn - it could have been that they were still working for the Sussexes and didn't want to face any repercussions from H&M while still employed at KP. That is a very common reaction from many employees/subordinates when someone in a higher position of authority/their direct manager is being accused of bullying or harassment.
Agree, I think a lot of bullied people dont want to make a complaint formal, because they know that other staff will shy away from backing them up, when push comes to shove.. and that management may occasionally listen to an initial complaint, they will tend to back other managers who may well be the bullies..Yes, I've known issues being raised at work being met with comments such as "If you don't like it here, you know where the door is". Or else the bully is made to apologise, rather like a teacher making a pupil apologise to another pupil, but they're clearly only saying it to bring the investigation to an end, and will then target the person who's complained even more than they were doing already. It's a very difficult situation to deal with.
We don't know exactly what happened, but what's worrying is that, if Robert Lacey is to be believed, Harry wasn't willing even to listen to what staff members were saying, and took umbrage because William was. As far as he was concerned, Meghan was infallible, and anyone who dared to suggest otherwise was at best disloyal and at worst racist. It's very hard to deal with that sort of attitude. No-one is perfect.
Thank you for pointing out the that with both brothers being in their thirties,, Diana would not have likely involved herself in this or other situations involving her adult sons.
"Battle of Brothers"...
William and Harry each made their own individual choices in life, that is all.
There is no "batlle". What should William or Harry battle for anyway?
Pffff....