Through her quest to rehabilitate women maligned by history, Anna Pasternak is also calling out the current 'toxic contract' between the British media and the monarchy
This was a great interview. Anna Pasternak has been saying this for some time so she's consistent. I agree with her that the monarchy is on borrowed time post-QEII and I think things will really come to a head when William is on the throne because he's setting himself up nicely for a credibility crisis. It started before Harry & Meghan left, and has only gotten worse since his grandmother died. I disagree with her on a number of things: if you're going to compare the older generations to younger generations on privacy, you have to take into account how things have changed. There was no social media in Wallis Simpson's time. Hate mail sent to your mailbox is easier to avoid. Meghan was literally run off social media after having a presence on it for years. Second, Harry and Meghan never mentioned privacy as a reason they left. In fact Meghan told Oprah in a cut scene she believes in sharing things with the world. It's why she disclosed her miscarriage. Also Harry and William's generation were born into a contract with the media--something no other prior generation was. I also wonder if Anna has read Edward VIII's journals? They were used in a CNN documentary about the royals and the way he spoke about his position in the royal family was very similar to Harry. They were both military men, both charismatic and popular, both loved meeting and interacting with ordinary people but they hated the presence of the press. They both hated how the press seemed to know where they'd be at a moment in time. And both I'd say were looking for a reason to leave the royals and found it in their wives. I don't care if Anna likes Meghan but for a woman dedicated to rehabilitating women that history hasn't been kind to, she still seems very critical of Meghan. Her right and not everyone has to like Meghan but there's an inconsistency there.
I am really glad that someone researched and told a story about the real Wallis. This journalist is a breath of fresh air. However, I still think where Meghan is concerned, she is still highly influenced by tabloid media. That “Meghan is difficult” trope, which she seems to still be holding tightly to, says a lot. She is clearly supportive of Harry but one can sense some reluctance when it comes to Meghan. She was able to redeem Wallis through talking to her friends, but she doesn’t seem to afford Meghan the same grace. I agree that it is still too early to do for Meghan what she did for Wallis, but if she really was interested in finding the real Meghan, the information is all over the internet and social media. Unlike in the case of Wallis, we now live in the era where information is on our fingertips. Another thing, she still seems to be upholding this harmful “ regal stiff upper lip” thing, which is concerning in this mental health era. Still, it is truly refreshing to hear a British journalist present such a bold view of British Monarchy. Thanks Meredith for such an interesting interview.
I completely agree with you, Lina. Once she repeated “difficult” and other tropes you allude to, I kept thinking that, despite her commendable growth and newly acquired awareness, she still doesn’t realize she’s being manipulated (by the BM and whatever contacts she may have in the Firm). Her description of Wallis could very well have been of Meghan. And the difference between Wallis’ time and today is light years with regards to privacy, social exposure, the press, mental health awareness, and, most dangerous of all, the death threats that H&M are forced to deal with (for YEARS). I think we truly can’t grasp the extent. I mean the fact that Harry won’t let his family enter the UK should tell us all we need to know about the level of threats against them.
Still, I enjoyed most of the interview, would love to read her Wallis book (have always wondered if history was lying to us about its women), and kudos to Meredith for arranging this interview!
I admire Ms. Pasternack's courage to publicly correct her opinion on Harry and Meghan, which will certainly close many doors for her.
However, I am surprised that she holds such a positive view of Queen Elizabeth and King Charles.
In my opinion, the Queen was only so popular because she was around for so long, and in the last 20 years, she was a cute, tiny grandma in colorful outfits. History will judge her harshly. Her most important task was to preserve the brand image, which primarily included a happy, harmonious family. And this is where she failed the most: Wallis Simpson and Edward were ostracized for their entire lives, Margaret wasn’t allowed to marry Peter Townsend even though Parliament had approved, she was given no role and was left unhappy for life, eventually driven to alcoholism.
QE2 emotionally neglected her children, pressured Charles to groom the young Diana into what was supposed to be a love marriage, failed to resolve their war of the roses and divorce, spoiled Andrew, pushed him and Fergie into divorce, gave Fergie such a poor settlement that in her struggle for financial security, she dragged the family from one scandal to the next. She failed to protect Harry and Meghan from Charles and William, didn’t enforce the Commonwealth role she wanted for them, and ultimately didn’t Another part of her legacy is the Commonwealth, a highly questionable institution. For decades, she delayed the reckoning with the colonial past and, through defining Britishness by the Empire, fueled Brexit.
Finally, she exempted herself from hundreds of laws, including the Equality Act. She essentially demanded the right to discriminate by gender and race. She also exempted herself from environmental laws, just like Charles.
And Charles: I don’t need to repeat what he did to Diana, William, Harry, and Meghan. That should be well known to everyone. On top of that, there are his many scandals, such as cash for honors, money in plastic bags, etc.
I also find his attitude towards homeopathy problematic, keyword snake oil. Not to mention that he bullied a professor in Exeter because he couldn't make sense of the scientific evaluation of alternative medicine.
As an urban planner, I find his outdated understanding of cities at least eccentric and economically unfeasible. It's no surprise that he quickly hit limits with his own village.
He has certainly made an impact in organic farming, but even there he is long behind the times. Perhaps he should leave matters in medicine, organic farming, and urban planning to the experts and not interfere.
Particularly with his commitment to environmental protection, it must be critically noted that few people in the world likely have as large a footprint as he does, with seven residences and a helicopter that he uses to fly between them. Preaching water and drinking wine is one of the least sympathetic traits.
It must also be noted that he exempted himself from laws, particularly environmental regulations. He did not revoke the exemptions that his mother had.
Lastly, it is worth questioning how much he knew about the abuse of children by his long-time friend and advisor Jimmy Savile. His uncle, Lord Mountbatten, whom he was very close to, was also likely a pedophile.
In my view, Charles is characteristically and morally unfit to be king, head of state and church, and commander-in-chief.
In my view, the only positive aspect is his Prince's/King's Trust, which has certainly helped many young people.
This listen made cleaning out the cat's litter trays actually quite fascinating!
I won't be popular for voicing this response here, but to my mind, the trouble for Meghan is not related to interviews, her media mis-representations or even relations with the Royal Family.
The problem is that the social media 'Megxit' crowd (and the media, no doubt) suspect that they have been duped - on small and bigger scales - and they will not let that sense of injustice go.
From my perspective, any choices she has made have been made for her own reasons and I am one who believes a woman is entitled to privacy - particularly when it comes to personal matters - and as much as I wish the relentless online abuse would stop, I fear she may need to somehow make her peace with this state of unpopularity.
I hope Meghan knows she has supporters who strive to understand and empathise with all she has journeyed through and continues to cope with. We're all human, all finding our own ways with the cards we're dealt, and each of us deserves the chance for fresh starts.
Guess that’s the difference with us Yanks…I can’t imagine if MLK or Rosa Parks or taxed colonists just accepted that injustice. Give me Justice or give me death.
So long as the Royal Family have everything in hand, I don't feel especially invested in any of their business. What I am invested in, is the cruelty of hating on one person to the extent that we've been seeing for years now.
This is an interesting convo. especially with the US. & UK perspectives. I'm hopping in because I don't want this to devolve into a Twitter comment section. It's hard to discuss either Harry/Meghan or William/Kate in any real way--well, as real as we can discuss them, we don't actually know them, or I'm assuming most of us don't--but I'd love to try, especially in regards to media coverage.
Not at all. I'm sorry if replying directly to you made you feel like you had done something wrong. Just table setting! (A little tired, upload issues last night means I'm running on 3 hours of sleep)
'Table setting' is a good way to put it and it's no problem at all.
I think I had jumped to thinking that it didn't matter what the press did or didn't report in these days of social media; that their days are numbered. But we're not there yet: the mainstream media still has the power and social media voices are easily overlooked.
It's interesting that your writing is called 'Pulling Threads,' as I very much suspect that there are more than a few yet un-pulled threads in the Royal Family's 'blanket'... it could well be that Meghan is privy to a few of these and that's one reason no one is stepping in to call off the witch-hunt (where it seems that Harry is being thrown multiple lifelines).
She had some salient points but then undermined them by saying that the older members of the family are not entitled and pushed usual media myths about Anne. Camilla brought in Bolland because she didn't like how she was portrayed in the press but Anna said that Camilla never complained about the press coverage.
Where do you find that Camilla brought in Bolland? All of my research shows that Charles--as the Prince of Wales with the power to bring someone new on to his team--brought in Bolland, who left the PCC, to work for the Prince of Wales.
OK it wasn't actually Camilla herself since as a woman she has no power in the Royal Family but she was not opposed to Charles bringing in Bolland to improve her image and build links between her and the press so much so that Camilla is now the favourite amongst the Royal rota. Overall I was a good interview but as said Anna said somethings that I think undermined her position.
She wasn't in the royal family at the time; she was the girlfriend that the Queen disapproved of. I actually still feel through my research that Camilla isn't necessarily beloved by the people, but by the press because of access. But, I also know I'm coming from a different lens and it always interests me to see where people fall on Camilla. TY for listening and your comments!
I agree with you regarding the public sentiment about Camilla but I've come to the realization that as long as the press is on the side of monarchy that it doesn't matter what the people really think about Camilla and/or the institution.
The well of Mr Bolland's power is said to run deep..he has formed a very close attachment to CPB who secures his favour w/Charles And even more than the Prince, she will hear nothing against the man who made it possible for her to co-exist with the man she loves.
One acquaintance of Mrs PB recalled a summer holiday at a villa of a wealthy friend during which she regularly called Mr Bolland "two or three or times a day". Bolland is really a Camilla appointment. The Prince of Wales is a man who needs constant reassurance. Mrs Parker Bowles tells him he's wonderful all of the time and Bolland is part of the act to boost the Prince of Wales's confidence."
“She wasn't in the royal family at the time; she was the girlfriend that the Queen disapproved of.”….
She had Charles by the balls, she did didn’t need him to put a ring in it for her to have power, she ran Highgrove while Diana was still married to Charles.
“I did have a peculiarly clear understanding of him at a particular moment in his life, simply because I knew Camilla so well, and I had grown to understand him through her eyes. Sometimes you end up knowing too much about people and their characters, and you lose a sense of detachment. I was starting to be used by him directly, and by him through her, ….Bolland maintained his links with Camilla for nine months… “She was coming under pressure from people at the Palace, and perhaps the Prince as well, not to see me and get conflicting advice.” Then, furious at the damage caused by the Burrell fall-out, Bolland publicly alluded to Charles's weakness. “I probably got more emotional than I should. That's when I said to Camilla: I Love you dearly. Let's have lunch or dinner a couple of times a year, but I can't be at the end of a phone any more'.”
“When Lord MacGregor became chairman of the Press Complaints Commission, Bolland followed, becoming its director in 1992.
Camilla Parker Bowles's lawyer, Hilary Browne-Wilkinson, was also on the PCC, and it was through her that Bolland was approached to join the prince's office. He was interviewed first by Camilla and then by Charles….To begin with, all went well. Bolland's work on Camilla's image led to "Operation Ritz", where the couple appeared in public together for the first time, a crucial step towards the royal consort's acceptance by the nation.”
Camila never complains publicly but she was the one pulling in strings behind the scenes and she’s still pulling the strings bc Charles is a week bitch the reason Harry and Charles can reconcile is bc of Camilla period
It certainly seems this way, doesn't it? I'm not sure her reported advice to the King ("keeping him calm to preserve energy for his Australia tour") sounds entirely helpful. When it comes to terminal illness, you don't mess around waiting to make peace with those you're at odds with.
Hi Meredith, thank you so much for such a brilliant interview in so many ways, especially because, in addition to confirming what Harry and Meghan have shared, it gave me just a little bit more insight into a woman that I’ve always been interested in and often thought “surely she could not have had so much power as to carry all the badness of an entire generation of humans that she’s been accused of:-)
A few points I took away, pardon the 12 pages :-)
1/ I was rather uncomfortable with Anna’s use of the word “bleat” when she referred to how the Duchess of Windsor (Wallis Simpson) did not complain when she was pilloried for a decision she didn’t make; granted Anna added that QE II did not complain either (I would not have used the 2 in the same reference because of different platforms of privilege they held).
2/ I felt like the word “bleat” took away the agency for one to tell their own story when there have been so many versions told by others depending on what purpose was to be achieved in each of those instances. I say so because to me it sounded like a negative choice of word when you are trying to highlight the vilification of an innocent person.
3/ Whatever the reason was for the Duchess of Windsor for not speaking out (maybe lack of access to the media give who controls that, or personal choice) it created more and more space for people to strip away her humanness, that any of us who have been long interested in her, but do not have the journalistic access that you have, are only starting to learn facts about her now (already checked out Anna’s website🥹). I felt like had she, or even someone in her circle, spoken out to correct the lies, we would have long had her human story. Perhaps the feeling of her “worth crumbling on her breakfast tray every morning” might have been a little more bearable right from the start. I was happy to hear that in the end she settled it with herself that her worth was not determined by those outside. I remember Meghan quoting Georgia O’Keefe along the same lines…it’s good for one’s sanity.
4/ In the case of Harry and Meghan, I have often thought in addition to just clearing themselves and sharing their pain in the hope of helping someone else , and hopefully future generations of the BRF, they also needed a “clean” start as they were just establishing themselves. All they had as a start was their character, which up to that point had been shredded and quite literally SOLD, to the honest bidder. They needed an image that could be trusted, to present to this new network that they were embarking on building for their commercial interests. I would say in the philanthropic community they were both known because of various levels of charity work involvement, but perhaps not so in the entrepreneurial community.
Come to think of it, their speaking out led Anna to get to understanding them better and changing her view of them. The whole business of “putting one down to promote the other” just breeds laziness because all one has to do is sell their family member, et viola! Their value in public opinion goes up without anything to show for serving the people they are meant to serve, but I digress.
I was also happy to hear about the work Anna is doing to highlight women whom history has vilified for decisions made by others, almost always men. Thank you for your work both of you.
Commenting on the last ten minutes. The Danish Royal family gives way more compared to the British. They televise the christening of their children, wedding receptions etc. I recently just saw an interview of now Queen Mary but she gave it when she was still a Princess comments about her wedding, courtship with the now king, her children etc something the British will never do. They can do a 3 minute video and give you a “glimpse” but where is the authenticity in that.
The only winner in this never ending awful story that started with Diana is the evil witch Camilla the ruined the wales marriage and now she’s ruined the relationship between Diana’s sons imagine if William and Harry and their wives would’ve united against that evil bitch cowmilla ? But bc William is so obsessed with being more popular that he’s brother he has ruined the entire family William is the biggest looser in this story stupid bitch ass
Anna Pasternack said in your podcast: "I have appeared on documentaries in the British press, and the only reason I did it was to speak out for Prince Harry, and I've been edited down to sound completely and utterly neutral, and actually slightly disapproving of him, which I'm not because I had a massive vault fast."
Today I came across a current, unbearable documentary by German public broadcaster zdf about Kate: Kate and the Windsors Tested by Fate. In it, Kate is portrayed as the shining light of the monarchy.
Anna Pasternack and Anna Whitelock and their good names are also used for that purpose. Both are among the few who are critical of the monarchy and in particular the symbiotic relationship between the royal family and the British media. Here, both are only shown once and for just a few seconds and they appear to be extremely positive about Kate. Pasternack says that "Kate is so popular with many Britons because she is a good mother and likes to show it. We really appreciate that she gives us more than just brief glimpses. We get to know her children and share in them. They are like our own family."
The announcement of the documentary states: This is confirmed by the British author Anna Pasternak, who had already noticed before the cancer drama how much pressure the princess puts herself under for her role in the Royal Family: Kate has a tough will that you need to survive in the House of Windsor.
I can well imagine that exactly what Anna Pasternack described in your podcast happened here.
I saved this to come back to when I needed a podcast and I’m so glad I did!
I can see why the repeat of the “Duchess Difficult” accusation here doesn’t land with an American crowd but I think that there’s a cultural difference at play here, in addition to racism and misogyny. I think on average any given Brit would find the work ethic and directness of any given American to be “difficult,” but I do hope that Pasternak will give some thought to whether it’s fair to accept that charge at face value. Especially because, and I mean this very kindly, it sounds like Pasternak would fit in quite happily with us “difficult” Americans and our culture!
This was a great interview. Anna Pasternak has been saying this for some time so she's consistent. I agree with her that the monarchy is on borrowed time post-QEII and I think things will really come to a head when William is on the throne because he's setting himself up nicely for a credibility crisis. It started before Harry & Meghan left, and has only gotten worse since his grandmother died. I disagree with her on a number of things: if you're going to compare the older generations to younger generations on privacy, you have to take into account how things have changed. There was no social media in Wallis Simpson's time. Hate mail sent to your mailbox is easier to avoid. Meghan was literally run off social media after having a presence on it for years. Second, Harry and Meghan never mentioned privacy as a reason they left. In fact Meghan told Oprah in a cut scene she believes in sharing things with the world. It's why she disclosed her miscarriage. Also Harry and William's generation were born into a contract with the media--something no other prior generation was. I also wonder if Anna has read Edward VIII's journals? They were used in a CNN documentary about the royals and the way he spoke about his position in the royal family was very similar to Harry. They were both military men, both charismatic and popular, both loved meeting and interacting with ordinary people but they hated the presence of the press. They both hated how the press seemed to know where they'd be at a moment in time. And both I'd say were looking for a reason to leave the royals and found it in their wives. I don't care if Anna likes Meghan but for a woman dedicated to rehabilitating women that history hasn't been kind to, she still seems very critical of Meghan. Her right and not everyone has to like Meghan but there's an inconsistency there.
I am really glad that someone researched and told a story about the real Wallis. This journalist is a breath of fresh air. However, I still think where Meghan is concerned, she is still highly influenced by tabloid media. That “Meghan is difficult” trope, which she seems to still be holding tightly to, says a lot. She is clearly supportive of Harry but one can sense some reluctance when it comes to Meghan. She was able to redeem Wallis through talking to her friends, but she doesn’t seem to afford Meghan the same grace. I agree that it is still too early to do for Meghan what she did for Wallis, but if she really was interested in finding the real Meghan, the information is all over the internet and social media. Unlike in the case of Wallis, we now live in the era where information is on our fingertips. Another thing, she still seems to be upholding this harmful “ regal stiff upper lip” thing, which is concerning in this mental health era. Still, it is truly refreshing to hear a British journalist present such a bold view of British Monarchy. Thanks Meredith for such an interesting interview.
I completely agree with you, Lina. Once she repeated “difficult” and other tropes you allude to, I kept thinking that, despite her commendable growth and newly acquired awareness, she still doesn’t realize she’s being manipulated (by the BM and whatever contacts she may have in the Firm). Her description of Wallis could very well have been of Meghan. And the difference between Wallis’ time and today is light years with regards to privacy, social exposure, the press, mental health awareness, and, most dangerous of all, the death threats that H&M are forced to deal with (for YEARS). I think we truly can’t grasp the extent. I mean the fact that Harry won’t let his family enter the UK should tell us all we need to know about the level of threats against them.
Still, I enjoyed most of the interview, would love to read her Wallis book (have always wondered if history was lying to us about its women), and kudos to Meredith for arranging this interview!
Fantastic interview!
I admire Ms. Pasternack's courage to publicly correct her opinion on Harry and Meghan, which will certainly close many doors for her.
However, I am surprised that she holds such a positive view of Queen Elizabeth and King Charles.
In my opinion, the Queen was only so popular because she was around for so long, and in the last 20 years, she was a cute, tiny grandma in colorful outfits. History will judge her harshly. Her most important task was to preserve the brand image, which primarily included a happy, harmonious family. And this is where she failed the most: Wallis Simpson and Edward were ostracized for their entire lives, Margaret wasn’t allowed to marry Peter Townsend even though Parliament had approved, she was given no role and was left unhappy for life, eventually driven to alcoholism.
QE2 emotionally neglected her children, pressured Charles to groom the young Diana into what was supposed to be a love marriage, failed to resolve their war of the roses and divorce, spoiled Andrew, pushed him and Fergie into divorce, gave Fergie such a poor settlement that in her struggle for financial security, she dragged the family from one scandal to the next. She failed to protect Harry and Meghan from Charles and William, didn’t enforce the Commonwealth role she wanted for them, and ultimately didn’t Another part of her legacy is the Commonwealth, a highly questionable institution. For decades, she delayed the reckoning with the colonial past and, through defining Britishness by the Empire, fueled Brexit.
Finally, she exempted herself from hundreds of laws, including the Equality Act. She essentially demanded the right to discriminate by gender and race. She also exempted herself from environmental laws, just like Charles.
And Charles: I don’t need to repeat what he did to Diana, William, Harry, and Meghan. That should be well known to everyone. On top of that, there are his many scandals, such as cash for honors, money in plastic bags, etc.
I also find his attitude towards homeopathy problematic, keyword snake oil. Not to mention that he bullied a professor in Exeter because he couldn't make sense of the scientific evaluation of alternative medicine.
As an urban planner, I find his outdated understanding of cities at least eccentric and economically unfeasible. It's no surprise that he quickly hit limits with his own village.
He has certainly made an impact in organic farming, but even there he is long behind the times. Perhaps he should leave matters in medicine, organic farming, and urban planning to the experts and not interfere.
Particularly with his commitment to environmental protection, it must be critically noted that few people in the world likely have as large a footprint as he does, with seven residences and a helicopter that he uses to fly between them. Preaching water and drinking wine is one of the least sympathetic traits.
It must also be noted that he exempted himself from laws, particularly environmental regulations. He did not revoke the exemptions that his mother had.
Lastly, it is worth questioning how much he knew about the abuse of children by his long-time friend and advisor Jimmy Savile. His uncle, Lord Mountbatten, whom he was very close to, was also likely a pedophile.
In my view, Charles is characteristically and morally unfit to be king, head of state and church, and commander-in-chief.
In my view, the only positive aspect is his Prince's/King's Trust, which has certainly helped many young people.
Oooh I can't wait to listen to this. It'll make my deep cleaning at the dentist so much more enjoyable next week.
I am so happy to be in your ears during your deep cleaning. LOL (good luck!)
Haha thanks! This is the 2nd one and listening to something enjoyable while they do their thing makes it tolerable.
This listen made cleaning out the cat's litter trays actually quite fascinating!
I won't be popular for voicing this response here, but to my mind, the trouble for Meghan is not related to interviews, her media mis-representations or even relations with the Royal Family.
The problem is that the social media 'Megxit' crowd (and the media, no doubt) suspect that they have been duped - on small and bigger scales - and they will not let that sense of injustice go.
From my perspective, any choices she has made have been made for her own reasons and I am one who believes a woman is entitled to privacy - particularly when it comes to personal matters - and as much as I wish the relentless online abuse would stop, I fear she may need to somehow make her peace with this state of unpopularity.
I hope Meghan knows she has supporters who strive to understand and empathise with all she has journeyed through and continues to cope with. We're all human, all finding our own ways with the cards we're dealt, and each of us deserves the chance for fresh starts.
Guess that’s the difference with us Yanks…I can’t imagine if MLK or Rosa Parks or taxed colonists just accepted that injustice. Give me Justice or give me death.
Two very different examples there, I think.
So long as the Royal Family have everything in hand, I don't feel especially invested in any of their business. What I am invested in, is the cruelty of hating on one person to the extent that we've been seeing for years now.
I think it’s cultural. Americans have an innate sense that injustice should not just go unchallenged. Cherrio! ;)
This is an interesting convo. especially with the US. & UK perspectives. I'm hopping in because I don't want this to devolve into a Twitter comment section. It's hard to discuss either Harry/Meghan or William/Kate in any real way--well, as real as we can discuss them, we don't actually know them, or I'm assuming most of us don't--but I'd love to try, especially in regards to media coverage.
Feel free to remove my comments if they're unhelpful to your conversation, Meredith - absolutely no problem xx
Not at all. I'm sorry if replying directly to you made you feel like you had done something wrong. Just table setting! (A little tired, upload issues last night means I'm running on 3 hours of sleep)
'Table setting' is a good way to put it and it's no problem at all.
I think I had jumped to thinking that it didn't matter what the press did or didn't report in these days of social media; that their days are numbered. But we're not there yet: the mainstream media still has the power and social media voices are easily overlooked.
It's interesting that your writing is called 'Pulling Threads,' as I very much suspect that there are more than a few yet un-pulled threads in the Royal Family's 'blanket'... it could well be that Meghan is privy to a few of these and that's one reason no one is stepping in to call off the witch-hunt (where it seems that Harry is being thrown multiple lifelines).
She had some salient points but then undermined them by saying that the older members of the family are not entitled and pushed usual media myths about Anne. Camilla brought in Bolland because she didn't like how she was portrayed in the press but Anna said that Camilla never complained about the press coverage.
Where do you find that Camilla brought in Bolland? All of my research shows that Charles--as the Prince of Wales with the power to bring someone new on to his team--brought in Bolland, who left the PCC, to work for the Prince of Wales.
Did you read Spare? Harry says Camilla convinced Charles to hire Mark Bolland. Camilla and Mark were very close
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/leisure/arts-and-culture/a45619059/who-is-mark-bolland-charles-camilla-spin-doctor/
OK it wasn't actually Camilla herself since as a woman she has no power in the Royal Family but she was not opposed to Charles bringing in Bolland to improve her image and build links between her and the press so much so that Camilla is now the favourite amongst the Royal rota. Overall I was a good interview but as said Anna said somethings that I think undermined her position.
She wasn't in the royal family at the time; she was the girlfriend that the Queen disapproved of. I actually still feel through my research that Camilla isn't necessarily beloved by the people, but by the press because of access. But, I also know I'm coming from a different lens and it always interests me to see where people fall on Camilla. TY for listening and your comments!
I agree with you regarding the public sentiment about Camilla but I've come to the realization that as long as the press is on the side of monarchy that it doesn't matter what the people really think about Camilla and/or the institution.
The well of Mr Bolland's power is said to run deep..he has formed a very close attachment to CPB who secures his favour w/Charles And even more than the Prince, she will hear nothing against the man who made it possible for her to co-exist with the man she loves.
One acquaintance of Mrs PB recalled a summer holiday at a villa of a wealthy friend during which she regularly called Mr Bolland "two or three or times a day". Bolland is really a Camilla appointment. The Prince of Wales is a man who needs constant reassurance. Mrs Parker Bowles tells him he's wonderful all of the time and Bolland is part of the act to boost the Prince of Wales's confidence."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1364004/Has-the-puppet-master-of-St-Jamess-finally-pulled-one-string-too-many.html
“She wasn't in the royal family at the time; she was the girlfriend that the Queen disapproved of.”….
She had Charles by the balls, she did didn’t need him to put a ring in it for her to have power, she ran Highgrove while Diana was still married to Charles.
https://archive.ph/2012.07.28-002057/http://www.bjr.org.uk/data/2004/no2_riddell
“I did have a peculiarly clear understanding of him at a particular moment in his life, simply because I knew Camilla so well, and I had grown to understand him through her eyes. Sometimes you end up knowing too much about people and their characters, and you lose a sense of detachment. I was starting to be used by him directly, and by him through her, ….Bolland maintained his links with Camilla for nine months… “She was coming under pressure from people at the Palace, and perhaps the Prince as well, not to see me and get conflicting advice.” Then, furious at the damage caused by the Burrell fall-out, Bolland publicly alluded to Charles's weakness. “I probably got more emotional than I should. That's when I said to Camilla: I Love you dearly. Let's have lunch or dinner a couple of times a year, but I can't be at the end of a phone any more'.”
Lets just say Camilla will never be MY Queen.
Amy Bee you are actually correct. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/mark-bolland-marital-aide-530391.html
“When Lord MacGregor became chairman of the Press Complaints Commission, Bolland followed, becoming its director in 1992.
Camilla Parker Bowles's lawyer, Hilary Browne-Wilkinson, was also on the PCC, and it was through her that Bolland was approached to join the prince's office. He was interviewed first by Camilla and then by Charles….To begin with, all went well. Bolland's work on Camilla's image led to "Operation Ritz", where the couple appeared in public together for the first time, a crucial step towards the royal consort's acceptance by the nation.”
Camila never complains publicly but she was the one pulling in strings behind the scenes and she’s still pulling the strings bc Charles is a week bitch the reason Harry and Charles can reconcile is bc of Camilla period
It certainly seems this way, doesn't it? I'm not sure her reported advice to the King ("keeping him calm to preserve energy for his Australia tour") sounds entirely helpful. When it comes to terminal illness, you don't mess around waiting to make peace with those you're at odds with.
Hi Meredith, thank you so much for such a brilliant interview in so many ways, especially because, in addition to confirming what Harry and Meghan have shared, it gave me just a little bit more insight into a woman that I’ve always been interested in and often thought “surely she could not have had so much power as to carry all the badness of an entire generation of humans that she’s been accused of:-)
A few points I took away, pardon the 12 pages :-)
1/ I was rather uncomfortable with Anna’s use of the word “bleat” when she referred to how the Duchess of Windsor (Wallis Simpson) did not complain when she was pilloried for a decision she didn’t make; granted Anna added that QE II did not complain either (I would not have used the 2 in the same reference because of different platforms of privilege they held).
2/ I felt like the word “bleat” took away the agency for one to tell their own story when there have been so many versions told by others depending on what purpose was to be achieved in each of those instances. I say so because to me it sounded like a negative choice of word when you are trying to highlight the vilification of an innocent person.
3/ Whatever the reason was for the Duchess of Windsor for not speaking out (maybe lack of access to the media give who controls that, or personal choice) it created more and more space for people to strip away her humanness, that any of us who have been long interested in her, but do not have the journalistic access that you have, are only starting to learn facts about her now (already checked out Anna’s website🥹). I felt like had she, or even someone in her circle, spoken out to correct the lies, we would have long had her human story. Perhaps the feeling of her “worth crumbling on her breakfast tray every morning” might have been a little more bearable right from the start. I was happy to hear that in the end she settled it with herself that her worth was not determined by those outside. I remember Meghan quoting Georgia O’Keefe along the same lines…it’s good for one’s sanity.
4/ In the case of Harry and Meghan, I have often thought in addition to just clearing themselves and sharing their pain in the hope of helping someone else , and hopefully future generations of the BRF, they also needed a “clean” start as they were just establishing themselves. All they had as a start was their character, which up to that point had been shredded and quite literally SOLD, to the honest bidder. They needed an image that could be trusted, to present to this new network that they were embarking on building for their commercial interests. I would say in the philanthropic community they were both known because of various levels of charity work involvement, but perhaps not so in the entrepreneurial community.
Come to think of it, their speaking out led Anna to get to understanding them better and changing her view of them. The whole business of “putting one down to promote the other” just breeds laziness because all one has to do is sell their family member, et viola! Their value in public opinion goes up without anything to show for serving the people they are meant to serve, but I digress.
I was also happy to hear about the work Anna is doing to highlight women whom history has vilified for decisions made by others, almost always men. Thank you for your work both of you.
Commenting on the last ten minutes. The Danish Royal family gives way more compared to the British. They televise the christening of their children, wedding receptions etc. I recently just saw an interview of now Queen Mary but she gave it when she was still a Princess comments about her wedding, courtship with the now king, her children etc something the British will never do. They can do a 3 minute video and give you a “glimpse” but where is the authenticity in that.
Wow. Incredible interview thank you Meredith and Anna !
I Dought lessons have been learned, as the monarchy is still lying on Harry and Meghan 8yrs later.
The only winner in this never ending awful story that started with Diana is the evil witch Camilla the ruined the wales marriage and now she’s ruined the relationship between Diana’s sons imagine if William and Harry and their wives would’ve united against that evil bitch cowmilla ? But bc William is so obsessed with being more popular that he’s brother he has ruined the entire family William is the biggest looser in this story stupid bitch ass
Aisha, I love you, in a grandfatherly way, I am 80. You hit the nail on the head.
Anna Pasternack said in your podcast: "I have appeared on documentaries in the British press, and the only reason I did it was to speak out for Prince Harry, and I've been edited down to sound completely and utterly neutral, and actually slightly disapproving of him, which I'm not because I had a massive vault fast."
Today I came across a current, unbearable documentary by German public broadcaster zdf about Kate: Kate and the Windsors Tested by Fate. In it, Kate is portrayed as the shining light of the monarchy.
Anna Pasternack and Anna Whitelock and their good names are also used for that purpose. Both are among the few who are critical of the monarchy and in particular the symbiotic relationship between the royal family and the British media. Here, both are only shown once and for just a few seconds and they appear to be extremely positive about Kate. Pasternack says that "Kate is so popular with many Britons because she is a good mother and likes to show it. We really appreciate that she gives us more than just brief glimpses. We get to know her children and share in them. They are like our own family."
The announcement of the documentary states: This is confirmed by the British author Anna Pasternak, who had already noticed before the cancer drama how much pressure the princess puts herself under for her role in the Royal Family: Kate has a tough will that you need to survive in the House of Windsor.
I can well imagine that exactly what Anna Pasternack described in your podcast happened here.
This was an amazing interview Thks Meredith n Anna.
This was absolutely outstanding. A must listen. Well done.
I saved this to come back to when I needed a podcast and I’m so glad I did!
I can see why the repeat of the “Duchess Difficult” accusation here doesn’t land with an American crowd but I think that there’s a cultural difference at play here, in addition to racism and misogyny. I think on average any given Brit would find the work ethic and directness of any given American to be “difficult,” but I do hope that Pasternak will give some thought to whether it’s fair to accept that charge at face value. Especially because, and I mean this very kindly, it sounds like Pasternak would fit in quite happily with us “difficult” Americans and our culture!