Endgame, p.28
Endgame, page 28
It was a masterful snow job from the Palace. In one go they delegitimized a disquieting narrative, laid blame on the media, and, once again, sidestepped any responsibility for Diana’s misery. In a campaign of mass distraction, Diana’s story was buried under a barrage of statements and reports primarily issued by powerful men. Her voice was almost lost to a mostly male echo chamber of opinion, interviews, and “findings.”
When it was the Duchess of Sussex’s turn for her own Panorama-style moment, a prime-time interview with Oprah Winfrey in March 2021, the royal institution had learned its lesson. This time, a campaign was activated before Meghan’s words were even broadcast. And certain aides had just the ammunition that was required. After members of the royal household, past and present, worked closely with a British journalist, Meghan’s reputation took a hit five days before Oprah with Meghan & Harry aired on CBS. On the front page of the March 2 edition of The Times of London: “Royal aides reveal Meghan bullying claim before Oprah interview.” Inside, a lengthy dossier-style reportage featured a number of allegations from sources and insiders all claiming Meghan had “bullied” and “humiliated” staff during her time at Kensington Palace. According to the newspaper’s royal correspondent Valentine Low, aides chose to “hit back” at the duchess, fearing “that only a partial version” of her two years as a working member of the royal family would be shared in the prime-time special. “They wanted to give their account of the turmoil within the royal household from Meghan’s arrival,” Low claimed, with details of how Meghan reportedly drove two personal assistants out of their jobs and undermined the confidence of a third staff member. One of them, he reported, told a colleague, “I can’t stop shaking,” before a meeting with the newly minted Duchess of Sussex. Others, the article added, were “reduced to tears.”
Spearheading these claims at Kensington Palace was Jason Knauf, who at the time of the story’s publication was CEO of William and Kate’s charitable umbrella but was previously the communications secretary for both the Sussexes and Cambridges. He first expressed concerns about Meghan’s bulldozing behavior, including her treatment of his friend and Sussex assistant Melissa Toubati, with the Palace’s head of human resources, Samantha Carruthers, back in October 2018. Knauf told Carruthers he was worried that “nothing will be done,” then followed up by emailing Simon Case.
“I am very concerned that the Duchess was able to bully two PAs out of the household in the past year. The treatment of [name one, redacted] was totally unacceptable,” he wrote in the memo, which was passed on to The Times. “The Duchess seems intent on always having someone in her sights. She is bullying [name two, redacted] and seeking to undermine her confidence. We have had report after report from people who have witnessed unacceptable behaviour towards [name two, redacted].”
Interestingly, despite claims that the former “tormented” staffers were keen for their stories to be heard before the Sussexes’ special aired, several sources confirmed to me that two of the “victims” mentioned in The Times’ piece had actually rescinded their stories. “When they heard Jason had raised [the issue], they did not want it to become an official HR complaint,” said a former member of the Kensington Palace team. Regardless, Knauf went ahead with internal conversations, including, a second source confirmed, several meetings with Prince William. “William wanted the story out there at the time . . . but it was tricky; it would have meant potentially putting members of staff who didn’t want to be identified or part of this in a vulnerable position.” It should come as no surprise then that, ahead of the Oprah interview, William was happy to overlook any prohibitive terms in staff members’ employment contracts before email communication between Knauf and Case was shared with The Times.
Essentially, this was your classic “oppo dump,” no different from when a political candidate collects information on their opponent and unleashes it in the final stages of an election or campaign to weaken them. Inside The Times’ explosive report were a number of other unrelated claims, including the fact that Meghan had worn earrings gifted from Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia, the same royal who U.S. intelligence agencies say approved the murder of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Surprisingly, the duchess chose to wear the jewels three weeks after his killing at an October 2018 dinner in Fiji hosted by the nation’s president. But a Sussex source claimed that the earrings were a wedding gift from the entire Saudi royal family and presented at Buckingham Palace on March 7, 2018, where the Sussexes weren’t present and that the earrings “remain property of the Crown.” Another allegation in the report suggested that Meghan ditched a visit to an initiative run by U.N. women on the same Fiji trip because of reservations about the organization (a biographer, briefed by the same former Palace aide, later added that Meghan took issue because they failed to make her an ambassador). “Ridiculous!” a staff member on the tour, which I was also on, told me. “We had to end the engagement early because there were security concerns at the market [where the engagement was at], which was quickly getting overcrowded. She was pregnant and security pulled the plug.”
The timing of the allegations was obvious to even the most die-hard royalists. Team Sussex was given the opportunity to comment a few days before the report, and the couple was devastated. Harry felt certain that the institution was behind it. “Let’s just call this what it is—a calculated smear campaign based on misleading and harmful misinformation,” a spokesperson for the couple pointed out. “It’s no coincidence that distorted several-year-old accusations aimed at undermining the duchess are being briefed to the British media shortly before she and the duke are due to speak openly and honestly about their experience of recent years.”
Meghan’s London-based lawyer, Jenny Afia, later explained, “What bullying actually means is improperly using power repeatedly and deliberately to hurt someone, physically or emotionally. The Duchess of Sussex absolutely denies ever doing that. Knowing her as I do, I can’t believe she would ever do that.”
From the time before the couple’s wedding to their January 2020 departure, I was deep into the reporting for Finding Freedom and in regular contact with the majority of Palace staff working for the Sussexes (sometimes several times a day). And though I was aware of how tense and fraught the atmosphere was for all on that team, largely down to the couple’s increasingly fractured relationships with the institution and members of the royal family, there was never a word uttered or overheard about “bullying” or anything that resembled such behavior. In fact, it wasn’t until Meghan’s final week in Britain as a working royal that I first caught wind of potential staff hostility on the horizon. “Don’t write that the staff were sad to see her go,” one of the couple’s aides said to me a couple of months later. This was after I had watched two team members wipe away tears as they bid farewell to the duchess. “Not all of us are or want to be portrayed as such.” That aide went on to help at least two journalists with stories about the couple, particularly Meghan.
Even though there were no definitive examples of the alleged bullying (to this day, neither Low nor any other reporter has shared an account or anecdote involving bullying), Buckingham Palace made the rare move of going public with their response, announcing in a statement sent to global media outlets that a full investigation would take place. “We are clearly very concerned about allegations in the The Times following claims made by former staff of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex,” read a statement issued less than twenty-four hours after the report ran, adding that the Palace’s HR team would be investigating the article’s allegations, and that staff from that period of time, including those who have left, would be invited to share their experiences. “The royal household has had a dignity at work policy in place for a number of years and does not and will not tolerate bullying or harassment in the workplace.”
At a time when she was about to share her royal experience with the world, Meghan’s new image as a bully was the reputational hit the Palace needed. Three people connected to those involved in the fiasco tell me that it was intentional to launch it just before her big interview. “I think some were worried that they would come out looking bad and no one was prepared to let Meghan have the final word,” said a former Buckingham Palace staffer. “To some, they truly believed Meghan was these things . . . but to others it was about revenge. It was their way of putting her in her place in the final hour.”
And it worked. When Meghan spoke about her difficult times working in the institution, media coverage in Britain still focused on the bullying allegations, and some used them to suggest she may have been to blame for the treatment she received. Behind the scenes, the Palace made a half-hearted attempt at conducting interviews (only a handful of people were ever approached) and carried out light investigative work. “It wasn’t a thorough investigation,” said the ex-staffer. “There really was never any intention to go much further with it. The claims served their purpose.” Indeed, as the months went by, so did the memories of the investigation.
Sir Michael Stevens, the Keeper of the Privy Purse, told reporters during a July 2022 Sovereign Grant Report briefing, “I can confirm though that it was a review of the handling of the allegations aimed at enabling the royal households to consider potential improvements to HR policies and procedures. The review has been completed and recommendations on our policies and procedures have been taken forward, but we will not be commenting further.” A Buckingham Palace spokesperson adds that conclusions were kept private to protect those taking part. It was an unsatisfactory outcome for all, including the participants of the investigation and the Sussexes, who—through their lawyer—filed a twenty-five-page report in early 2022 to Buckingham Palace’s HR department to refute all the bullying allegations. To this day, details of the institution’s report remain unknown to the public, unseen by the Sussexes or their lawyers, and somewhere in a vault at Buckingham Palace.
Harry, said a source, “was gutted that his family would watch this kind of dirty game play out.” During a conversation just hours after the September 19, 2022, funeral of Prince Philip, Harry confronted his father and brother about why nothing was done on Meghan’s behalf. “You must understand, darling boy, the institution can’t just tell the media what to do!” Charles told him.
In both Diana’s and Meghan’s cases, the institution showed it can be masters of PR sleight of hand, but it comes with tremendous fallout. Royal Family, Inc., does not exactly have a spotless reputation for how it treats the women who enter into the family business. Discrediting Diana’s account and posthumously labeling her as overly suspicious and unstable won’t help. Before her death, Diana was ordered to suffer in silence. Though now back in the fold, Sarah, Duchess of York, spent years being punished for speaking up after her divorce from Prince Andrew. She spent almost thirty years shunned and unforgiven for allowing someone to suck her toes five months after their separation, despite the depravities of her former husband, which have forever disgraced the entire organization and himself. As for Meghan, the full story is still emerging—the Oprah interview, the Netflix docuseries, and Harry’s memoir all revealed a shocking amount, and there are still things the couple has not shared. Maybe they never will. When it comes to Meghan’s grim experiences behind palace walls, the royal family may stand by “recollections may vary,” but it is now accepted truth that, at the very least, the institution ignored Meghan when she was in pain.
It’s a dismal record, and with William now openly claiming his mother was essentially too paranoid to speak the truth, it proves the institution still operates under the principle that women not born into the family are, ultimately, disposable. Kate, of course, counters this, but then she’s never challenged the system with public struggles or oversize aspirations. Comfortable in her role, willing to bring the requisite smile and elegance to her duties as princess, Kate glides under the radar. For now, anyway. It doesn’t hurt that she is the wife of the heir to the throne and mother to the next in line. In many ways, Kate is protected in a way that other unrelated women were not. Norman Baker, who is not shy about criticizing the Sussexes, said that he was told by the boss of the major national newspaper he was writing for at the time, one with close ties to the royal family, that he could “say what I want about Harry and Meghan, but I had to lay off William and Kate. That was the instruction from the editor.”
In the Sunken Garden at Kensington Palace there now stands a commemorative statue of Diana. It tastefully adorns one end of an ornamental pond that serves as the terraced garden’s centerpiece, attracting tourists far and wide. On a sultry July 1, 2021, morning, William and Harry temporarily set aside their differences to unveil the bronze Ian Rank-Broadley–designed sculpture for its first public viewing. Many hoped this reunion would signal a thaw between the brothers, that this occasion to honor their mother would somehow bridge the widening gulf between them. Instead, it proved just a polite photo op that is now inconsequential in comparison to the transfiguring events that followed in the coming years. Harry left less than fifteen minutes after the photographers got their shot, exchanging only a few pleasantries with his brother.
Now, visitors can stroll the gardens and “reflect and celebrate” the life of Princess Diana, hopefully also spending a little money in the nearby Palace gift shop (complete with Diana-related memorabilia) or the on-site Orangery where you can indulge in afternoon tea overlooking the grounds where she once walked and chatted to gardeners. As for the brothers, we are unlikely to see them visit this site together anytime soon, if ever again. Not even her legacy can fix that.
But her human suffering, her impact, her eminence as a pattern breaker, these will never leave the many of us who lived through her time in the sun. And they’re also stamped on the history of the royal family, whether they like it or not. An inverted mirror image, her statue’s reflection in the palace pond is a reminder of how, depending on the light, her true story briefly vanishes but always reappears.
12
Skilled Survivors
Camilla and Kate, Windsor Women
Part I: Camilla
The Transformation of a Mistress
The two most powerful warriors are patience and time.
—Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace
I feel as if I have been blessed to undergo a transformation from “gangster” to “redeemed sinner with gangster proclivities.”
—Cornel West, 2016, 60 Minutes interview
Resting in the rugged but fertile valleys that stretch between Crete’s majestic Mount Psiloritis and the towers of sun-bleached limestone that make up Mount Spathi, the Lyrarakis Winery is a family-owned business best known for its first-rate wines and commitment to sustainability and environmental stewardship. It was a natural spot for Camilla, then the Duchess of Cornwall, an earthy woman who shares her husband’s zeal for eco-friendly ventures, to stop for a tour and taste some wine during the couple’s 2018 visit to Greece. Dressed in a flowy cream and white outfit fit for a sunny day in the mythologized Greek countryside, Camilla walked the dusty vineyard paths, visited the vine museum, and tasted several of the Lyrarakis wines.
A photographer snapped the requisite photos as Camilla raised a glass to toast her hosts, claiming, “I [have] never had Greek wine before, but it is delicious. I will certainly have it again.”
With that it could have been job well done for Camilla—a natural end to the engagement and time to pack up and move on to the next leg. But, with time to spare, Camilla stuck around and enjoyed the views from the winery’s taproom—and got to know Robert Jobson, a royal correspondent of nearly thirty-five years. As luck had it, Jobson was the designated journalist from the royal rota covering the engagement, and he was also gathering reportage for his book on the then Prince of Wales, Charles at Seventy. The heir and his team gave Jobson unrivaled access during this time, so Camilla was well aware that he was in the thick of it. An old hand at working rooms, Camilla called Jobson over. “Do you want to join us doing the wine tasting, Robert?” she asked with a smile. Alongside Camilla’s private secretary, the trio relaxed and chatted under the watchful gaze of her protection officer Inspector Mark Andrews as they sampled wines with a selection of cheeses. “I thought, that’s a very kind move, and a smart one, too,” said Jobson. “I didn’t see it as her trying to be manipulative or an attempt to suck up to a journalist. It was just a relaxed atmosphere and something any normal, considerate person would do. And it was great wine; neither of us needed the spittoons!”
This is modus operandi for Queen Camilla—schmoozing and delighting come naturally. Speak to anyone who has spent more than a few minutes with her and they’ll talk about how charmed they were by her sense of humor and her ability to hold a conversation. Much of that is down to her personality, but it also comes from how she was raised. Camilla was brought up old-style near the picturesque rural village of Lewes in East Sussex; her parents, Major Bruce and Rosalind Shand, were both considered charming aristocrats from a bygone era. Major Shand was a handsome World War II hero who was well-versed in wine, fox hunting, and conservative politics. Before she married the debonair major, Camilla’s mother mixed in society circles as Rosalind Cubitt, daughter of the 3rd Baron of Ashcombe. Rosalind, the debutante of the year in 1939, was a radiant beauty who was comfortable holding court among that era’s beau monde. In Palace Papers, former Vanity Fair editor in chief Tina Brown wonderfully describes her as “generously bosomed, vivacious, and witty.” She was known to puff on small cigars, but she was strict about manners when it came to her children. Rosalind embodied old money and all the trappings of aristocratic life. Her triple great-grandfather was Thomas Cubitt, a famous nineteenth-century builder who oversaw construction of many of the mansions that still grace London’s tony neighborhood of Belgravia, as well as the iconic east front of Buckingham Palace. On the other side of Rosalind’s family tree, her grandmother, socialite Alice Keppel, was King Edward VII’s favorite highborn mistress and illicit plaything of twelve years. It seems even the inclination to become a royal paramour was passed down the family line to Camilla.
