This is a repeat comment. The public understands that the Monarch cannot control individual members' behaviors. The Monarchy CAN control whether it continues to endorse an individual's behavior, once knowledge of it exists, through allowing them to retain titles and other benefits.
Timely, effective action in such situations is the measure of the power and judgment of the Monarch.
So far the British Monarchy has been investing a lot of money in PR specialists, crisis managers in the sense of stomping out flames once there is a fire, digital archives specialists, estate managers etc. What if they put more money & emphasis into themselves & key aides on behavioral analysis, leadership, EQ training, teamwork & group dynamics training & best of all bring in the Princess of Wales & actually study & listen to early childhood development strategies. Go a little further than the etiquette/diplomatic briefings they get before assuming public duties. The Monarch & the principal heirs would benefit greatly to develop the skills & training that other corporate leaders do. And because they're a family & family members are engaged in the work, these folks would benefit greatly by team & family dynamics skills & educational development too. So far Monarchs seem to think a regular set of skills gained from whatever little ed (in some cases VERY little, King Charles is the only British monarch in history to have earned a university degree) or military training they've received is sufficient. If looked at as a specialty corporation (or actually as the "nation state" as a company model) the monarchy is arguably #1 in terms of global name recognition, cultural influence, & traditional soft power. It serves as a, if not 'the', premier global, state-backed brand. It commands billions of pounds in assets & generates billions of pounds in tourism & consumer perception. How many other large corporate type organizations would have at the top management level such poorly skilled & educated/training executives running the show?
I do believe Sir Christopher Geidt had this in mind, although he was approaching a singular goal at the time of his discharge. That goal was to unify the 3 separate "offices" & strengthen the unity & sense of working for one mission & embody the values of the Monarchy as a whole for all the separate players & mini-teams ("offices"). Although i understand that in the formulation of the long-range action plans all key players & offices take part in that plan it seems the vision of a "whole body" (if you will) is often missing & those meetings for long-range planning & goal setting are pretty few & far between. Missing along with that are the emphasis on values, standards of behavior, recognition & re-emphasis that the privileged lifestyle accorded to royal family members brings with it some obligations in both their working lives & to an extent their private lives.
I tend to believe what Andrew Lownie writes. Has anything he has uncovered so far about the Yorks turned out to be false? I believe in reasonable transparency for public figures. We can’t ‘kill the messenger’ if the message is repugnant but true.
Tour observation about the “tax” the monarchy pays for relevance is sharp analysis of the friction between an old institution and a high-velocity media cycle.
I wonder if there is also a deeper demographic shift at work. For those who remember earlier eras of the Crown, the movement from statecraft to scandal feels like a recurring distraction. For younger audiences, the distinction barely exists. The “House of York” is not viewed as a separate historical branch, but as part of a single contemporary brand. Where older observers may see regrettable noise surrounding the late Queen’s centenary, younger observers increasingly see a failure of institutional accountability. In that sense, the farce is no longer interrupting normal service; for many, it has become the institution’s defining public reality.
Agreed, so many young people do not have the longer-range context of Monarchical operation, accomplishments, failures, traditions, conventions; their perspective is what is happening today or recently. And it is true that all publicly visible royals are seen as part of the whole Monarchical structure, one "bad actor" (so to speak) reflects on the whole image & brand. In this sense then King Charles' whole reign has pretty well been defined as one scandal after another with a few golden accomplishments but hardly offsetting the perceived failures. And i'm not quite sure King Charles, his primary staff & his more influential aides recognize this or at least insert this dynamic into their short & long-term action plans.
Another new dynamic is that the Duke and Duchess of York did not publicly denigrate and attempt to upstage the BRF. Nor the Duke and Duchess of Windor. The Sussexes, however, have and continue to do so six years in, through words and deeds. I do not know the Duchess of Sussex, but her behavior suggests that the implosion of the BRF would not bother her; she would probably enjoy the notoriety of association and more importantly, make yet more money talking about it. That is a dangerous new dimension.
I agree with you - a family member as a "deliberate agent of destruction" of the monarchy has been rare in the current monarchy's history so the institution is incapable of responding effectively to it - due to the apparent reasons. It's a beloved family member or the Monarch's inability to recognize a crisis or not knowing how to manage it before it becomes a scandal in the making, or hoping it can be covered up or will blow over before becoming public & do damage. Gone are the days when the rebel was executed or harshly punished. That's what makes managing a "team" comprised of family members & their spouses & offspring so tricky, especially lacking the skills & training that we see today of the Monarchy's leadership. That's why i advocate that more emphasis should be put on the training & unification of the team & the embodying of team values & standards of behavior.
That is a fair distinction to draw. The House of York’s talent for unfortunate association is fundamentally different from what increasingly looks like the House of Sussex’s strategic dissociation. The Windsors and Yorks, however embarrassing at times, still operated within the assumption that their status depended upon the institution’s survival; the newer danger is the possibility that parts of the bloodline now see greater value in monetising the monarchy’s instability than in preserving its legitimacy. That shifts the problem from familial burden to internal competitor. The Crown is confronting not merely a relentless media cycle but an organised, well-funded counter-narrative from within its own family.
I’m reminded of the old saying, “where there’s muck there’s brass.” Interest in these stories has always been there and is simply being shared in more and varied ways, it’s not just the News of the World anymore.
The Crown may lament the speed, constancy and crassness of the modern media cycle, but I always remember that the royal communications machine is not just a victim or collateral damage as a result of it. The Palace has spoon fed that machine when needed, briefed through it when useful to their narrative, frozen people out when “they” deemed necessary, and hidden for many years behind the convenient verbiage, “no comment,” even when accountability would have been the better choice.
You cannot spend years upon years cultivating mystery, deference, access journalism (royal rota) and selective and well timed leaking, then whinge when we won’t let a topic go to the wayside because they have not answered our questions.
The problem as I see it is that the institution moves too slowly, too opaquely, and too often only when the level of scandal or embarrassment becomes unavoidable and impossible to ignore.. The lack of transparent standards, timely responses, and the willingness and ability to set boundaries around conduct/behavior may have spared them the pain of constant scrutinization. Using silence as a strategy and deference as insulation is not going to cut the mustard anymore.
The bill has been posted, itemised and laid out in headlines, Substack articles, podcasts, Twitter threads and paperback extracts.
The inaction of the Crown has created this storm, so it can’t act surprised when their brolly no longer works.
Andrew Lownie has been, to date, a reputable biographer. I have noticed a shift in his video interviews (all over YouTube) a certain self-aggrandizement, a believing of one's own press releases. When you're reporting, you need to be very very careful about the latter when talking about your subjects.
This accusation about Sarah Ferguson, if proven false, can blow his reputation to smithereens. I wonder why Lownie went there. I personally find it strains credulity. And in the lessons we and the BRF need to learn about the Yorks, is this at all worth caring about? The dude's a perv and serving time on other charges. Or is it like UFOs, just another sighting of Little Green Men or Foo Fighters?
This is a repeat comment. The public understands that the Monarch cannot control individual members' behaviors. The Monarchy CAN control whether it continues to endorse an individual's behavior, once knowledge of it exists, through allowing them to retain titles and other benefits.
Timely, effective action in such situations is the measure of the power and judgment of the Monarch.
So far the British Monarchy has been investing a lot of money in PR specialists, crisis managers in the sense of stomping out flames once there is a fire, digital archives specialists, estate managers etc. What if they put more money & emphasis into themselves & key aides on behavioral analysis, leadership, EQ training, teamwork & group dynamics training & best of all bring in the Princess of Wales & actually study & listen to early childhood development strategies. Go a little further than the etiquette/diplomatic briefings they get before assuming public duties. The Monarch & the principal heirs would benefit greatly to develop the skills & training that other corporate leaders do. And because they're a family & family members are engaged in the work, these folks would benefit greatly by team & family dynamics skills & educational development too. So far Monarchs seem to think a regular set of skills gained from whatever little ed (in some cases VERY little, King Charles is the only British monarch in history to have earned a university degree) or military training they've received is sufficient. If looked at as a specialty corporation (or actually as the "nation state" as a company model) the monarchy is arguably #1 in terms of global name recognition, cultural influence, & traditional soft power. It serves as a, if not 'the', premier global, state-backed brand. It commands billions of pounds in assets & generates billions of pounds in tourism & consumer perception. How many other large corporate type organizations would have at the top management level such poorly skilled & educated/training executives running the show?
I do believe Sir Christopher Geidt had this in mind, although he was approaching a singular goal at the time of his discharge. That goal was to unify the 3 separate "offices" & strengthen the unity & sense of working for one mission & embody the values of the Monarchy as a whole for all the separate players & mini-teams ("offices"). Although i understand that in the formulation of the long-range action plans all key players & offices take part in that plan it seems the vision of a "whole body" (if you will) is often missing & those meetings for long-range planning & goal setting are pretty few & far between. Missing along with that are the emphasis on values, standards of behavior, recognition & re-emphasis that the privileged lifestyle accorded to royal family members brings with it some obligations in both their working lives & to an extent their private lives.
I tend to believe what Andrew Lownie writes. Has anything he has uncovered so far about the Yorks turned out to be false? I believe in reasonable transparency for public figures. We can’t ‘kill the messenger’ if the message is repugnant but true.
Tour observation about the “tax” the monarchy pays for relevance is sharp analysis of the friction between an old institution and a high-velocity media cycle.
I wonder if there is also a deeper demographic shift at work. For those who remember earlier eras of the Crown, the movement from statecraft to scandal feels like a recurring distraction. For younger audiences, the distinction barely exists. The “House of York” is not viewed as a separate historical branch, but as part of a single contemporary brand. Where older observers may see regrettable noise surrounding the late Queen’s centenary, younger observers increasingly see a failure of institutional accountability. In that sense, the farce is no longer interrupting normal service; for many, it has become the institution’s defining public reality.
Agreed, so many young people do not have the longer-range context of Monarchical operation, accomplishments, failures, traditions, conventions; their perspective is what is happening today or recently. And it is true that all publicly visible royals are seen as part of the whole Monarchical structure, one "bad actor" (so to speak) reflects on the whole image & brand. In this sense then King Charles' whole reign has pretty well been defined as one scandal after another with a few golden accomplishments but hardly offsetting the perceived failures. And i'm not quite sure King Charles, his primary staff & his more influential aides recognize this or at least insert this dynamic into their short & long-term action plans.
Another new dynamic is that the Duke and Duchess of York did not publicly denigrate and attempt to upstage the BRF. Nor the Duke and Duchess of Windor. The Sussexes, however, have and continue to do so six years in, through words and deeds. I do not know the Duchess of Sussex, but her behavior suggests that the implosion of the BRF would not bother her; she would probably enjoy the notoriety of association and more importantly, make yet more money talking about it. That is a dangerous new dimension.
I agree with you - a family member as a "deliberate agent of destruction" of the monarchy has been rare in the current monarchy's history so the institution is incapable of responding effectively to it - due to the apparent reasons. It's a beloved family member or the Monarch's inability to recognize a crisis or not knowing how to manage it before it becomes a scandal in the making, or hoping it can be covered up or will blow over before becoming public & do damage. Gone are the days when the rebel was executed or harshly punished. That's what makes managing a "team" comprised of family members & their spouses & offspring so tricky, especially lacking the skills & training that we see today of the Monarchy's leadership. That's why i advocate that more emphasis should be put on the training & unification of the team & the embodying of team values & standards of behavior.
That is a fair distinction to draw. The House of York’s talent for unfortunate association is fundamentally different from what increasingly looks like the House of Sussex’s strategic dissociation. The Windsors and Yorks, however embarrassing at times, still operated within the assumption that their status depended upon the institution’s survival; the newer danger is the possibility that parts of the bloodline now see greater value in monetising the monarchy’s instability than in preserving its legitimacy. That shifts the problem from familial burden to internal competitor. The Crown is confronting not merely a relentless media cycle but an organised, well-funded counter-narrative from within its own family.
I’m reminded of the old saying, “where there’s muck there’s brass.” Interest in these stories has always been there and is simply being shared in more and varied ways, it’s not just the News of the World anymore.
The Crown may lament the speed, constancy and crassness of the modern media cycle, but I always remember that the royal communications machine is not just a victim or collateral damage as a result of it. The Palace has spoon fed that machine when needed, briefed through it when useful to their narrative, frozen people out when “they” deemed necessary, and hidden for many years behind the convenient verbiage, “no comment,” even when accountability would have been the better choice.
You cannot spend years upon years cultivating mystery, deference, access journalism (royal rota) and selective and well timed leaking, then whinge when we won’t let a topic go to the wayside because they have not answered our questions.
The problem as I see it is that the institution moves too slowly, too opaquely, and too often only when the level of scandal or embarrassment becomes unavoidable and impossible to ignore.. The lack of transparent standards, timely responses, and the willingness and ability to set boundaries around conduct/behavior may have spared them the pain of constant scrutinization. Using silence as a strategy and deference as insulation is not going to cut the mustard anymore.
The bill has been posted, itemised and laid out in headlines, Substack articles, podcasts, Twitter threads and paperback extracts.
The inaction of the Crown has created this storm, so it can’t act surprised when their brolly no longer works.
Andrew Lownie has been, to date, a reputable biographer. I have noticed a shift in his video interviews (all over YouTube) a certain self-aggrandizement, a believing of one's own press releases. When you're reporting, you need to be very very careful about the latter when talking about your subjects.
This accusation about Sarah Ferguson, if proven false, can blow his reputation to smithereens. I wonder why Lownie went there. I personally find it strains credulity. And in the lessons we and the BRF need to learn about the Yorks, is this at all worth caring about? The dude's a perv and serving time on other charges. Or is it like UFOs, just another sighting of Little Green Men or Foo Fighters?