As much as Grant Harrold says he loved being a butler for the royal family, I think he may have missed his true calling. I wonder whether he might have done well as an actor, and, in my opinion, that may also be true (to a certain extent) of other people on the panel of The Royals Uncensored (and perhaps commentators on several other royal commentary shows).

I find it remarkable that a show that calls itself “uncensored” seems (as far as I know) to be hiding an enormous truth from its viewers in plain sight. At the very least, I haven’t heard anyone on the show talk about it.

Grant Harrold, a member of its panel and the group’s designated “insider” who portrays himself as a devoted former butler who never has a bad word to say about the monarchy, has reportedly been in legal disputes with the royal family.

According to reports, Harrold’s departure from Charles’s household wasn’t nearly as amicable as he portrays. In fact, the butler, who “reportedly worked for Prince Charles between 2005 and 2011 … was previously involved in a dispute with the Royal Household after claiming he was forced out of his job in 2012, before reaching an out-of-court settlement.”

In 2020, Queen Elizabeth II’s lawyers took legal action to stop Grant Harrold from trademarking “the name ‘The Royal Butler’ for his etiquette training firm.” They “took action to prevent Harrold from launching his business under the title.”

Tatler explains,

“Lord Chamberlain … acting on behalf of the Queen, filed an opposition to the trademark application. The Queen’s legal team refuted that Harrold had received permission to use the name and alleged that he was misleading the public by suggesting that he was still working for the Royal Household. They added that Harrold had not received the consent of either the monarch or the Cabinet Office, who are the only authorities that can give permission to officially use the term ‘Royal’. The UK Intellectual Property Office ruled in the Queen’s favour and refused Harrold’s application.”

Please be aware that I am not casting any personal aspersions against Grant Harrold. I don’t know him, and perhaps he truly felt he’d been treated unjustly by the royal family and household. In the interest of fairness, here is his book, The Royal Butler: My Remarkable Life of Royal Service (I may earn a small commission from this link), in case you’d like to look at it.

However, I think we are certainly justified in feeling some doubt about the authenticity of the persona he presents. And you may decide to view The Royals Uncensored (and perhaps other royal commentary shows) in a new light.

Did you enjoy this article? Please click the like button to let me know!

And please let me know what you think in the comments. I’m looking forward to hearing from you.

Please help me continue writing The Royal Tea Report by supporting my work with a small donation via Buy Me a Coffee. I appreciate each and every penny. 🙏

Buy Me a Coffee

Thank you for reading The Royal Tea Report.

Quinn explains that while other parts of society changed how they approached childhood in the 18th century, the British royal family and aristocracy tended to stay stubbornly fixed in the past, showing very little change or evolution.

As the author states:

“For the upper classes, the old ways were the best. Nannies and governesses and nurses were and are still employed on the basis partly of habit and partly because of the deeply entrenched idea that childcare is not something royals do.”

This article contains affiliate links. If you click and make a purchase, I may receive a small commission that helps support my work on The Royal Tea Report. Thank you.

Charles, Philip, and Gordonstoun

I’d already heard about how traumatized King Charles III was at Gordonstoun, yet I was stunned by the accounts of his experiences found in this book.

For example, we read in Chapter 8:

“In a letter home Charles wrote, ‘They throw slippers all night long or hit me with pillows or rush across the room and hit me as hard as they can.’ His deeply sad letter had no effect at all and Charles was forced to continue in an environment that was absolute torture for him.”

Quinn talks about how cold and distant Queen Elizabeth II was towards her first two children. The author writes,

“With Charles and Anne, she…rarely visited the nursery and never once visited the schoolroom where her children were being given their first lessons. Charles was damaged by this and was later publicly to complain about his childhood, especially his parents’ long absences on world and Commonwealth tours. Anne was far tougher and virtually unapproachable – her reaction to childhood deprivation was to retreat behind an impenetrable carapace [a shell].”

It seemed everyone other than his parents, including staff, saw how much Charles suffered. Quinn shares a first-hand account from a member of staff who worked for the royal family during Charles’s childhood:

“‘He had the look of a boy who would be the first boy all the other, tougher boys would pick on. He had no male role model early enough in his life to make a difference. His father was never around. In fact, if Elizabeth and Philip had been poor, they might well have been charged with child neglect! And even when Philip was around, he was constantly shouting at Charles – he hated what he saw as weakness, weakness that reminded him of his own father.”

While it’s true that Andrew and Edward received more attention from their parents, Philip encouraged Andrew to be aggressive. He “liked his son’s bullying ways,” and that “Andrew was a kind of mirror image of his father.”

The author says, “Damaged by childrearing practices unchanged in centuries yet aware of the new world they were growing into, the four children of the monarch [Charles, Anne, Andrew, and Edward) found themselves wildly unsuited to, and incapable of dealing with, the new realities.”

Mountbatten

As we already know, Louis Mountbatten was basically the closest thing to a father figure that Charles had. While this must have felt like a comfort at the time, Mountbatten unfortunately exerted a terrible influence on his ‘honorary grandson.’

Mountbatten influenced Charles to think he should have exploitative relationships with women, and he encouraged him to think he could marry Diana and yet continue with his affairs. He had also done the same with Philip, teaching him it was perfectly acceptable to have affairs during his marriage to the queen, as long as he was discreet.

As it happens, Philip seems to have gotten away with this kind of behavior, but Mountbatten’s advice was disastrous for Charles. Quinn writes,

Louis Mountbatten “completely failed to see that the world had changed out of all recognition when he made it his aim to make Prince Charles marry Diana Spencer. His interference and manipulation of a young, vulnerable and highly sensitive man led to one of the most disastrous royal marriages in British history – a marriage [between Charles and Diana] that led to a divorce that almost destroyed the royal family.”

The book also contains some extremely disturbing (or even more disturbing) information about Mountbatten. Quinn discusses what is known about how Mountbatten abused young boys, and how he specifically targeted boys from vulnerable backgrounds. He says,

“Mountbatten was also careful to [only] abuse boys from ordinary backgrounds. As a former member of Mountbatten’s staff explained to the present author, ‘Working-class boys were acceptable targets of abuse where aristocratic boys would most certainly not have been.’”

This was presumably because he assumed that if the working-class boys or their families spoke out about the abuse, no one would believe them (or he could shut them up).

Gilded Youth Will Tear Off Any Rose-Tinted Glasses

If you want to romanticize the British royal family and think its members have always been paragons of virtue, you probably won’t enjoy Gilded Youth: A History of Growing Up in the Royal Family from the Tudors to the Cambridges. But if you want an historically accurate account of the experience of childhood in the royal family over many generations, you should definitely read this book.

Tom Quinn does an outstanding job of showing how “royal childcare down the ages tends to follow a bizarre pattern: monarchs and consorts who have had difficult childhoods seem largely incapable of learning from their own difficulties.”

This article contains affiliate links. If you click and make a purchase, I may receive a small commission that helps support my work on The Royal Tea Report. Thank you.

The Royal Reads section (here at The Royal Tea Report) is where I’ll write and publish my informal, chatty thoughts on popular books I’ve read about the British royal family.

So, if books about the royals are your thing, remember to keep an eye out for my first post there.

And please think about joining The Royal Tea Report community! I hope I see you there!

Samantha

I think most royal watchers probably recognize the name Rose Hanbury (the Marchioness of Cholmondeley), with all the rumours that swirled online a couple of years ago. Since then, we haven’t heard much about her.

However, in a May 29th Daily Mail article on Prince William’s “secret life” (those words are in the title) Barbara Davies (completely out of the blue and immediately after praising the Middletons’ domestic life), seems to go out of her way to remind us that Houghton Hall (the Cholmondeleys’ ancestral home) is “next door” to Anmer Hall (William and Kate’s Norfolk home), and declares that William and Catherine “form a regular foursome with Rocky [the Marquess] and 42-year-old Rose, cooking supper for each other, hosting dinner parties and attending the occasional local Norfolk charity event.”

I wonder, why does Barbara Davies make a point of mentioning the Cholmondeleys here? Very interesting, to say the least…

Davies writes,

“At Anmer Hall, the Prince and Princess of Wales’ much-loved country estate in Norfolk, [William’s] closest pal is the 7th Marquess of Cholmondeley, who lives next door on the historic Houghton Hall estate, but their friendship – and that shared by their wives – is anything but stiff and starchy, even though there is a significant age gap between the Marquess, who is 65, and the Prince. The Marquess, who served as Great Lord Chamberlain to Queen Elizabeth II and is a permanent Lord-in-Waiting to the King is known as ‘Rocky’ to Prince William. He and Kate form a regular foursome with Rocky and 42-year-old Rose, cooking supper for each other, hosting dinner parties and attending the occasional local Norfolk charity event.”

Then, right after describing Rose as “down-to-earth” and talking about how she and her husband enjoy the countryside, Barbara Davies asks, “But where does all this fit in with William’s royal duties and, how will life with his inner circle be impacted when, one day, he assumes the throne?”

I’m a bit confused. If they’re just “cooking supper for each other, hosting dinner parties and attending the occasional local Norfolk event,” how would that affect William when he is king?

Yes, there were other claims made on separate topics in the article, and she is referring to those as well as what she says regarding the Cholmondeleys.

However, it seems rather strange that she positioned the discussion of the Marquess and Marchioness immediately before her apparent concern about William’s kingship…

What do you think? I’d love to hear your insights and opinions in the comments.

Did you enjoy this article? Please click like to let me know!

Please support my work and help me continue writing The Royal Tea Report by making a small donation via Buy Me a Coffee (click the button below). I appreciate each and every penny. 🙏

Buy Me a Coffee

You can also help by signing up for a paid subscription (40%-off sale)! Thank you for being here and reading The Royal Tea Report.

Some of the links in this article are affiliate links. I may earn a small commission that helps support my work here at The Royal Tea Report.

I don’t know about you, but I love classic style, especially classic British style. Palaces and stately homes and classic aesthetics go hand in hand, and the royal fascination with top-quality stationery and writing instruments is well-known.

That’s why I decided to put together this list of stationery products and pens with a noticeably regal aesthetic. A few have been used by members of the royal family, while others are more affordable picks with just the right look.

1. Rose Gold Ballpoint Pen from Parker

Parker is a legendary brand in British culture, and the Royal Family has certainly been known to use its pens and ink. Parker Pen Company was given the Royal Warrant by Queen Elizabeth II in 1962, and King Charles III renewed it after his reign began.

I can imagine Catherine, the Princess of Wales, writing notes with Parker’s lovely Matte Rose Gold Ballpoint Jotter Pen.

2. Fountain Pen by Parker

Parker created a limited edition luxury fountain pen to commemorate the wedding of Lady Diana Spencer and Prince Charles in 1981.

Today, the Sonnet is one of Parker’s most prestigious fountain pens. But if you’re looking for something more affordable, consider the Parker Jotter Fountain Pen instead.

This Parker Jotter Fountain Pen is made from stainless steel and features gold trim and a medium nib.

3. Victorian Peacock Journal by Peter Pauper Press

This hardcover notebook features a stunning golden cover with a deeply reminiscent (and gorgeous) Victorian “chinoiserie” design. Designs inspired by the Asian world continue to play a prominent role in royal residences. One example is the Chinese Room, in the East Wing of Buckingham Palace.

4. “Royal Animals” Stationery by Alexa Pulitzer Stationery

Before she married Prince Harry, Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, was known to use Alexa Pulitzer stationery. Alex Pulitzer is an artist based in New Orleans, and her stationery company is a hit with celebrities.

Meghan loved writing letters on monogrammed Alexa Pulitzer stationery with an adorable animal theme. While that specific product is no longer available, you can still get your hands on notecards with a fun-loving “Royal Animals” theme, including the “It’s My Party” notecards with a cute frog image.

5. Gold and Cream Thank You Notes by Peter Pauper Press

You don’t have to spend a fortune to buy lovely thank you cards. Peter Pauper Press offers this package of high-quality Gold and Cream Thank You Notes with “a crisp linen-like finish” and a gold foil border. Of course, the kit comes complete with matching envelopes.

6. Parker Ink Bottle (Quink Liquid Ink by Parker)

If you’re serious about the fountain pen experience and buy a converter, you can fill your pen with liquid ink from the bottle. There is anecdotal evidence that Diana, Princess of Wales, used blue-black Quink ink for her correspondence.

7. Smythson A4 Writing Folder with Zip

Catherine, the Princess of Wales, has been seen with a monogrammed Smythson A4 Writing Folder with Zip on several occasions. This item is definitely on the pricey side, but if you need a folder like this and want to invest in top quality, you could give this Smythson folder a try.

8. Smythson Kings Writing Paper

This letter-writing paper may be fit for a king (or so the name implies), but it’s more affordable than you might expect. Smythson is a stationery company known to be favored by the royals, and its Kings Writing Paper comes in a variety of colors to suit your style and mood. I find “Cream” the most classic and versatile selection, so that is the one that I’d choose.

Thanks for being here and reading The Royal Tea Report! The Royal Tea Report is a reader-supported publication.

I love writing The Royal Tea Report, but it takes a significant amount of time to research and write each article.

You can support my work with a one-time donation via Buy Me a Coffee. I appreciate each and every penny. 🙏

Buy Me a Coffee

If you’re new to The Royal Tea Report and haven’t subscribed yet, you can sign up below. 😊

Some of the links in this article are affiliate links. If you click one and make a purchase, I may earn a small commission that helps support my work here at The Royal Tea Report.

I’m astounded that Brothers and Wives: Inside the Private Lives of William, Kate, Harry, and Meghan by Christopher Andersen (published in 2021 by Gallery Books, an imprint of Simon & Schuster) hasn’t been mentioned more in the media. This explosive book certainly contains several narrative-shattering bombshell claims that I’m sure the palace was desperate to keep hidden.

In this article, I’ll talk about eight hitherto well-obscured royal secrets that Andersen reveals in this compelling book.

(This article contains affiliate links, from which I may earn a small commission that helps support my work. Thank you.)

1. Young Prince Harry was deliberately denied therapy after his mother’s death.

In Brothers and Wives, Andersen states that Prince Harry wasn’t given therapy after his mother’s death because of “concern among some of Her Majesty’s advisors that it ‘would simply not look good at the moment’ for members of the royal family ‘to be seen to have mental health issues’.” He continues,

“At one point shortly after Diana’s funeral, the same Prince Charles who had steadfastly resisted hiring a therapist for William and Harry during the nasty breakup of their parents’ marriage now approached the Queen about seeking grief counseling for his sons. ‘The Queen initially agreed that it was a good idea,’ a St. James’s Palace staffer said, ‘but was talked out of it.’ There was concern among some of Her Majesty’s advisors that it ‘would simply not look good at the moment’ for members of the royal family ‘to be seen to have mental health issues.’”

2. William and Harry were tricked out of attending a memorial dedication for their mother.

Christopher Andersen reports that William and Harry were maneuvered out of attending the dedication of the Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial in Kensington Gardens.

He explains,

“no one had bothered to inform the princes about the dedication. ‘They were both furious when they found out – particularly William,’ a former deputy private secretary at St. James’s Palace stated. ‘His father claimed to be in the dark about it as well,’ Harold Brooks-Baker said, ‘but that wasn’t true. He wanted the focus off the princess and on Camilla once and for all. Every time the public was reminded about the love Diana had for her boys, Charles and Camila both took a dive in the polls.”

3. In a blind rage, William drove at twice the legal speed limit and risked the safety of an elderly neighbor.

We learn that William has had terrifying fits of temper that were ignored and excused. Andersen reports:

“William’s lapses in judgment and displays of temper were either ignored or downplayed. On one occasion, he was on horseback returning from a foxhunt when he spotted photographer Clive Postlethwaite and rode straight at him, forcing the terrified paparazzo into a ditch. William screamed, ‘Fucking piss off!’ and, according to Postlethwaite, ‘just went mad. He rode toward me with his eyes wide and his teeth showing.’ On another occasion, William, driving his VW Golf at twice the legal speed limit, nearly ran the Land Rover driven by septuagenarian Lord Bathurst, a Gloucestershire friend and neighbor of Prince Charles’s, off the road. Neither episode caused much of a stir.”

4. The “Men in Gray” discussed the color of Meghan and Harry’s future children’s skin, and a former senior staffer to King Charles says the “aristocracy as a whole is rife with racist thinking”.

This should have been reported all over the media. In Brothers and Wives: Inside the Private Lives of William, Kate, Harry, and Meghan, Christopher Andersen writes,

“the Men in Gray voiced concern about how the royal family ‘will look to the rest of the world’ once Prince Harry and his future wife, Meghan Markle, began having babies. ‘It’s not that the senior royals are racist per se,” a former member of Prince Charles’s senior staff said. ‘The Queen [Queen Elizabeth II] certainly isn’t. But there are a few in the extended family who are, and the aristocracy as a whole is rife with racist thinking.’ As for the courtiers, bureaucrats, and advisors who actually keep the Firm up and running: ‘Most are not racist, but some are, and, unfortunately, at rather high levels.’”

5. William wanted to spend his gap year playing polo with elites in Argentina, not doing volunteer work.

Many of us remember the images of Prince William on his gap year doing volunteer work in Chile, but it turns out that wasn’t his preferred plan. In fact, he “had wanted to play polo in Argentina,” Christopher Andersen reveals. However, “Charles vetoed the idea as ‘too elitist.” That was why he ended up spending “ten weeks with 110 other young volunteers … scouring toilets, painting houses, chopping wood, and tutoring children in the coastal village of Tortel.”

6. William introduced Harry to the wild party scene and let his younger brother take the blame.

Christopher Andersen says, “It was William, in fact, who brought his underage brother to the [Rattlebone Inn] in the first place.” He continues,

“William’s reputation as a nightclub-hopping party animal was well-documented, as were his close ties to a number of young aristocrats arrested on a wide range of drug offenses. Yet, in stark contrast to the withering criticism leveled at the Spare, the Heir’s reputation remained, in the Queen’s words to her private secretary, ‘unsullied, thank goodness.’”

7. William treated Kate with arrogant disrespect.

When William and Catherine were in university and dating, William continued to visit a former girlfriend, Jecca Craig, in Africa.

As Andersen explains,

“for two years in a row William insisted on returning to Africa to spend part of his summer vacation with Craig. When he announced he intended to go a third time, Kate put her foot down. She felt, said a member of their tight group at St. Andrews, ‘threatened and humiliated.’ William [stubbornly] dug in. It wasn’t until Harry cautioned his headstrong brother to consider Kate’s feelings that William grudgingly canceled his trip to Kenya.”

Andersen also reports that William was often seen “openly and often outrageously flirting with other women” on “boozy nights out.”

8. Harry was ignored and marginalized at family events.

Christopher Andersen says, “Harry, seated far from the center of the action despite his high rank in the Firm, was … relegated to the sidelines since childhood.” He was

“accustomed to not getting the sort of attention that was lavished on William at [family events]. As an adult, however, there were signs that the entire unspoken arrangement was beginning to wear thin. ‘Prince Harry was all smiles and laughs,’ observed one of the Buckingham Palace footmen working at Kew Palace that night. ‘The Queen really is very fond of Harry, but, at family gatherings, he’s often kept at a distance. You can see him glancing over, trying to read lips: ‘Hmmm, I wonder what they’re saying.’”

(This article contains affiliate links. I may receive a small commission if you click them and make a purchase, which helps support my work at The Royal Tea Report. Thank you.)

Please help me continue writing The Royal Tea Report with a paid subscription (40% off!), or via a donation at Buy Me a Coffee. 🙏

Buy Me a Coffee lets you make a one-time donation of any amount. I appreciate each and every penny. 🙏

Buy Me a Coffee

You can get your copy of Brothers and Wives: Inside the Private Lives of William, Kate, Harry, and Meghan on Amazon.

Did you enjoy this article? Hit the like button to let me know!

I love writing The Royal Tea Report!

I spend several hours researching and writing each article, and I want to be able to continue writing this publication.

That’s why I’m asking (if you can) to consider supporting my work with a paid subscription (40% off sale!), or via Buy Me a Coffee. 🙏

Buy Me a Coffee lets you make a one-time donation of any amount. I appreciate each and every penny.

My Buy Me a Coffee link: https://buymeacoffee.com/theroyalteareport

Buy Me a Coffee

Thanks so much! And if you’re new to The Royal Tea Report and haven’t subscribed yet, you can sign up below. 😊

Why Get a Paid Membership?

You can subscribe for free, but please upgrade to a paid membership (40% off!) to support me, so I can continue writing The Royal Tea Report.

Here are the paid member-only perks in The Royal Tea Report community!

• You can start new discussion threads in Chat

• You can comment in paid members-only comments sections

• You have full access to paid members-only posts

Get your paid membership at a 40%-off discount! Both monthly and annual included.

https://theroyalteareport.substack.com/subscribe

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

I’m sure many tenants of the duchy are relieved to see this matter finally given more attention. Indeed, large segments of the British population will likely be pleased to see such a powerful and prestigious publication admit that the Duchy of Cornwall (and the Duchy of Lancaster, for that matter) “are public assets.”

The Times points out that while the Duchy of Cornwall provides Prince William, as the Prince of Wales, “with a quite staggering income,” and contains assets “worth about £1 billion,” he isn’t required to pay any tax on the money he gets from the duchy. We cannot know how much (if any) money he pays voluntarily, as (unlike his father, King Charles), William is exceptionally secretive about his finances.

The article also discusses how difficult it is to do a full investigation of the Duchy of Cornwall, as it is shrouded in secrecy. Surely, information about public land should be easily and readily available to the public?

I think most clear-thinking people would agree with the view of The Times that the “duchies are an anachronistic expression of royal entitlement.” But the question is why doesn’t William see that, or if he does, why doesn’t he care?

He certainly seems quite high-handed in the decisions he makes about the Duchy, including choices that directly impact the lives (and livelihoods) of the people who live there. Many of the duchy residents come from families that have lived there (and paid rent) for generations.

It was recently reported that the Prince of Wales plans to sell several farms in the duchy, without the consent of the farmers. The duchy offered the farmers the chance to buy their properties from the duchy, but this is a financial impossibility for most.

If the tenant farmers don’t buy their farms, they face the risk that their properties will be sold to a landlord who will raise their rents so high they cannot afford them or make conditions impossible for them to continue farming.

Last week, Will Humphries of The Times reported on this issue, revealing the opinions of some of the tenant farmers being impacted by the sale. He reports, “One tenant farmer said he would not be able to buy his farm without saddling his family with ‘generations of debt.’”

Another farmer pointed out the apparent hypocrisy in a prince “who is supposedly…focused on mental health,” causing so much “stress and anxiety amongst the farmers.”

Very good point. And didn’t William do an engagement (with lots of photo opps) just a few months ago for a farmers’ mental health charity?

I don’t think anyone can say it’s not feudal and backwards for one man (especially one who has his position simply by birth) to be able to destroy the livelihoods of farmers whose families have worked on their land for generations.

Please help me continue writing The Royal Tea Report with a paid subscription (40% off!), or via a donation at Buy Me a Coffee. 🙏

Buy Me a Coffee lets you make a one-time donation of any amount. I appreciate each and every penny. 🙏

Buy Me a Coffee

Subscribe now

Since Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Sarah Ferguson’s close relationship with Jeffrey Epstein made the headlines, there have been some murmurings and hints that perhaps we should feel sorry for Beatrice and Eugenie. And especially since Andrew was arrested and spent 11 hours at a police station, there have been lamentations about how the sisters feel “humiliated” and “broken,” and are “in a state.”

On February 20, a reporter on The Sun’s YouTube channel (I will link the video below) pointed out that Beatrice and Eugenie grew up in their parents’ world and under their influence, which seemed to suggest that perhaps we should refrain from judging these well-connected and socially powerful princesses for their own questionable “friendships” and financial arrangements.

Well, I have a question for that reporter (and the two princesses). Do you believe the influence of one’s parents (and trauma in childhood) should make everyone immune to judgment for illegality in the United Kingdom?

Or do these rules just apply to (very entitled and, in my opinion, not particularly intelligent) princesses?

There have been reports that the princesses (Beatrice, at least) were aware of who Jeffrey Epstein was and what he had gone to prison for from very early on.

Didn’t they feel any sympathy or empathy for his victims? Or did they follow in their parents’ footsteps and think of them as almost a different species, beneath consideration?

None of Beatrice and Eugenie’s understanding of the morally and legally questionable (at the very least), and criminal, nature of their parents’ associates made them hesitate to indulge in extremely luxurious lifestyles in their youth. Beatrice, especially, was known for having a “jet-set lifestyle.”

Where did that money come from? How many “gifts” did they directly or indirectly receive from their parents’ “friends”?

And if Beatrice and Eugenie believe they haven’t participated in any financial misconduct, why have they refused to allow their bank accounts to be audited at official request?

Some commentators point to the York princesses’ “careers,” claiming that they earn a living. My only response would be to Google the terms nepotism, cronyism, and mutual back-scratching. Does anyone truly believe they would have those extraordinarily cushy and apparently extremely undemanding positions without their connections and “network”?

So, Beatrice and Eugenie, I have a message for you (if you care at all about the opinions of the “little people”). You won’t get any sympathy from me.

What do you think? Let me know in the comments. Please like this post and sign up for a free (or paid) subscription, so all my future posts get sent straight to your inbox.

Here is the video from The Sun I mentioned:

Even if you follow royal news, you may not have heard about this.

On December 30th of last year, Peter Hunt, a former BBC correspondent and presenter, and contributor to LBC, The Observer, The iPaper, and The Telegraph, wrote (on X, formerly known as Twitter):

“William has control of the media — here’s what’s being hidden from us.”

(Link to tweet) (Edit: for some very strange reason, the link isn’t working. But I promise if you go to Peter Hunt’s account on X (make sure you have the right Peter Hunt) and scroll down far enough, you will find this tweet.)

The tweet links to an article by Hunt in The iPaper, with the same title as the tweet.

Here is its subtitle:

“Access is the Prince of Wales’s trump card and he is a wily operator — the press must co-operate or risk being frozen out.”

This circumstance would certainly explain the curious lack of negative headlines and stories about, and serious investigations into, William in the British media. It is also probably why so many British journalists seem to fall all over themselves trying to avoid saying anything that may make William angry, lest he cut off their access.

In the article, Hunt explains:

“After a blip a decade ago when [William] was briefly nicknamed ‘work-shy Wills’ by the tabloids, he now basks in a level of benign attention rarely afforded to public figures. The dominant reason is access, and the media’s fear of losing it.”

According to Hunt, it’s because of this that journalists tend to stay away from topics “such as royal finances.” He also implies it accounts for “the media’s conveniently short-term memory” when it comes to subjects and questions William would rather avoid.

Peter Hunt offers the example of the lack of media follow-up on the 2024 Channel 4 Dispatches investigation into the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster. In the documentary, it was revealed that:

“the private estates that provide the King and his elder son with incomes had secured rental agreements worth millions of pounds with the armed forces, the NHS and state schools.”

Hunt reminds us that:

“On TV, a few days later, the heir to the throne was given time to talk about a bracelet he’d received from his daughter after a Taylor Swift concert, but wasn’t quizzed about taxpayers contributing to the roughly £23m he derives from the Duchy of Cornwall. When it was their turn, newspaper royal reporteres observed a similar omertà. Imagine a government minister being given such an easy ride.”

In normal circumstances (i.e., if there wasn’t an incumbent Prince of Wales perhaps intimidating the media out of doing their jobs), I think there is little doubt the British media would have jumped all over the Dispatches story (and others like it).

In my view, the fact they didn’t do this tells us what is happening behind the scenes. I think there is every reason to believe that information is being withheld from the British public.

Did you enjoy this article? Please click the like button and make sure you subscribe, so you receive my future articles in your inbox.

Please help me continue writing The Royal Tea Report with a paid subscription (40% off!), or via a donation at Buy Me a Coffee. 🙏

Buy Me a Coffee lets you make a one-time donation of any amount. I appreciate each and every penny. 🙏

Buy Me a Coffee

Discover 40%-Off Discount on Paid Subscriptions!

Subscribe now

The Royal Tea Report!

It’s still the same great newsletter full of royal news and gossip (the tea part of Royal Tea), and my unique perspectives on the British royal family.

Thank you so much for subscribing to The Royal Tea Report and being part of our community!

Samantha

Look, I’m not one of those people always looking for reasons to criticize Meghan and Harry. Quite the opposite.

But within seconds of starting this clip, I decided it had to be AI (or at least AI-enhanced, to put it mildly).

There is a short part later on in the video that actually does look real. I’m sure you’ll notice that. Now compare that part to the others! I mean, really?

In most of this, Harry looks and moves like a video game avatar of himself, more like an animation than a real human being. He and the instructor appear almost glued onto the background, and the water has a kind of plastic look.

Subscribe now

And honestly, I almost died when the instructor appeared out of nowhere on the waves to guide Harry, and then dove into the water headfirst. 🤣🤣

You’ve got to watch it for yourself.

Could a human safely swim against those waves? I guess I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

The IG account that posted this seems to belong to Harry’s surfing instructor or school. People swarmed the comments asking if the video is AI. The person who answered actually claimed that it is real! 😳

Am I in The Twilight Zone?

Now, I’m not disputing that Harry surfs. I’ve seen real videos with him riding the waves. But there is no way on this earth that I’ll ever believe this isn’t AI-generated (or maybe “enhanced,” but for me, that’s a stretch). I’ve seen some people say a green screen could have been used, too.

What do you think? Let me know in the comments!

Did you enjoy this article? Please hit the like button before you go.

Please help me continue writing The Royal Tea Report with a paid subscription (40% off!), or via a donation at Buy Me a Coffee. 🙏

Buy Me a Coffee lets you make a one-time donation of any amount. I appreciate each and every penny. 🙏

Buy Me a Coffee

Subscribe now

I must admit, when I first saw Catherine’s Mother Nature series of videos on the seasons, I immediately thought, some of that looks (and sounds) a little AI. A lot of the landscape scenery looked a bit too generic and “off,” for lack of a better word, and the up-close detailed nature imagery looked a little too “on the nose” and/or unrealistic (AI often does both), and even uncanny, and there were a few other hints.

And it seems like I may not be the only one to wonder about this, at least not when it comes to the Winter video of this seasonal series.

In his Newsweek column on January 13, after the release of Kate’s Winter video, Jack Royston warned Catherine and William against overly glossy videos, explaining they’re out of vogue because of the prevalence of AI and viewer distrust.

Yes, Royston declares that “Kate and Prince William have made good use of their Kensington Palace videographer in recent years.” But I wonder if this is said with a bit of wry British irony.

After all, it does seem strange that one videographer would be able to capture that much panoramic footage. Plus, the sheer number of shots would be an enormous amount of work. Would the Kensington Palace videographer have that much extra time and level of skill? It seems a task more fitted to a Hollywood director. Yes, a drone would have been used, but one imagines that at the end of the day, this would still be a complex and expensive project.

I also find one specific shot in the Winter video especially suspicious. It shows what appears to be Catherine’s hand wearing the Princess Diana sapphire engagement ring, dipping her fingers in a brook. Wouldn’t there be a risk of the ring falling off and being washed away?

In any case, whether or not Royston feels any of the Winter video is AI-generated or enhanced, he points out:

“The professionally edited, stylized footage in which Kate’s voice-over appears to have been written in advance is the kind of content some in the marketing industry are currently warning against for fear it reads as ‘AI slop.’” (Jack Royston, Newsweek)

While Jack says there is “nothing to suggest Kate’s recent video is AI-generated,” I don’t get the impression he is convinced that it isn’t.

And he reminds us, “she did get dragged into a major AI-fueled social media storm back in March 2024.” Again, Royston is obliged to explain there is no evidence the image was AI-generated. But he does point out “it appeared that Kate’s entire head had been added in from another image.”

It’s hard to know how much of the video footage itself is AI-generated. However, I think there is little doubt that the voiceover script is a creation of Chat GPT (or Claude, or something similar).

Think it’s impossible that the royal family uses AI? Think again. Remember that fiasco several months ago where Buckingham Palace published “The Princess Royal - 75 Facts at 75,” in which it falsely claimed that Princess Anne’s current husband had been previously married and had children?

That seems almost definitely the result of AI hallucination (a fancy way of saying that AI makes things up out of thin air). And I’m not the only one who thinks that AI was used.

In fact, unless you believe that someone at Buckingham Palace made up lies about Anne’s husband, even giving names to imaginary children from an imaginary previous marriage, AI seems the only possible culprit for that disastrous Princess Anne article.

Here are a couple more screenshots from the Mother Nature videos.

Subscribe now

What do you think of the Mother Nature videos and the possibility of AI use? Let me know in the comments.

Did you enjoy this article? Please take a moment to click like before you go!

(Video above is from the U.S. state visit to the U.K. in 2025)

But when we think of how ruthless Camilla has been in the past, perhaps it’s not so surprising she would be petty enough to shoo away her step-daughter-in-law during a state visit in September of last year.

If she is jealous of Kate and wants to avoid being near her, one would think she would at least exert herself to disguise it in public.

What do you think Camilla is doing here? I personally feel there is no question whatsoever that she is shooing away Catherine. I feel that she didn’t want to stand beside Kate and invite comparisons, and that she wanted to monopolize the conversation of the U.S. first lady.

I also feel that Camilla is quite vain about her status as queen, and she wants constant deference.

Agree? Disagree? Let me know what you think in the comments!

Harry will soon arrive in the United Kingdom again to offer evidence at the High Court, and no one can deny that William and Catherine are more than aware.

Kate suddenly moved on from sleepy, tweedy nature videos pondering Mother Nature, to slipping on an ultra-modern (and rather geometric) crimson red pantsuit and driving herself (gasp!) to an engagement at Windsor Castle.

And she held her own umbrella (and sheltered her aide from the rain)!

Subscribe now

As for William, that man seems to have ants in his pants. He apparently even took a sudden fancy to pretending he was a farmer. Yes, I know it was in support of a mental health charity, but he was getting really stuck in.

It’s all a bit startling, really. I think we assumed William and Catherine were firmly ensconced and immovable at Forest Lodge, at least for the time being.

And when Harry is actually in London later this week, William will be far away in Bristol. Just a coincidence, I’m sure.

And I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that all these firsts just happened to take place shortly before Harry will be back in England. Kate driving herself to an engagement and carrying her own umbrella, and William feeding sheep and pruning an orchard all at one frantic agricultural pace.

One would never think they could be doing this as a distraction? Never!

Look, Harry isn’t perfect, and neither is William. No human being is flawless, after all. But I think many of us can agree it would benefit not only Harry but also King Charles and the institution of the British monarchy for William to talk to his brother.

Before any William and Catherine fans express their fury in the comments, please remember this is all in good fun. :)

Did you enjoy this article? It would mean the world to me if you’d click like before you go! :)

Please help me continue writing The Royal Tea Report with a paid subscription (40% off!), or via a donation at Buy Me a Coffee. 🙏

Buy Me a Coffee lets you make a one-time donation of any amount. I appreciate each and every penny. 🙏

Buy Me a Coffee

Subscribe now

Over the last few years, we’ve heard numerous times how Prince William “hates” Harry because of Spare. So, it’s rather startling to discover (as reported by the Daily Mail) that the elder prince has never actually read his younger brother’s memoir.

If we are to believe that William loves (or loved) his brother, why wouldn’t he take the time to read the entire book, so he could get the full context, and have a deeper understanding of Harry’s emotions and experiences?

Subscribe now

The Prince of Wales knows the trauma he and Harry experienced as a result of their mother’s death and the general dysfunction and disconnection in the royal family.

Yet he couldn’t summon enough compassion for the younger man he once said he always had his “arm around.”

There have been claims that Spare victimized William, because he “couldn’t answer back.” Yet clearly, William has let it be known to the press that he is furious about Spare.

So, if he could “answer back” in that way, why do his most fervent supporters say he couldn’t publicly dispute claims in the book that he feels are untrue?

What do you think? You’re welcome to express your opinions in the comments, but please be polite!

We all need escapism sometimes, but I like to keep it interesting.

That’s why I created The Royal Tea Report (formerly Royal Ramblings). It’s a lighthearted and fun yet perceptive newsletter presenting my clear-eyed (and sometimes wry) commentary on the British royal family.

I present my opinions and critiques in an honest way. I’m willing to criticize anyone if I think it’s fair and they deserve it.

I’ve got a lot to say, so don’t forget to subscribe. :) My name is Samantha, and I have a lot of well-informed opinions on plenty of topics, and one of them is the British royal family.

I’m Canadian but come from a British family. I was obsessed with the UK for years, and I’m very knowledgeable about British culture.

I hope you’ll become part of the The Royal Tea Report community.

Click below to get your free subscription to The Royal Tea Report.

Legal disclaimers: All content on The Royal Tea Report represents subjective personal analysis, interpretations, and opinions. Any statements about individuals, public or private, are offered as opinion only, and never as assertions of fact. I am not responsible for how readers interpret the content on this site. I bear no responsibility for the comments people leave on this site.

Images, quotes, or excerpts included in Royal Ramblings are used for commentary, critique, and informational purposes, and are believed to be covered under fair use. All rights belong to their respective owners.

Join the The Royal Tea Report Community!

Subscribe toThe Royal Tea Report for free!

Subscribe now

Despite their impressive portfolio of other homes, including an enormous Norfolk country house called Anmer Hall and a spacious four-story “apartment” (with 20 rooms) at Kensington Palace in London, they decided to find another property. Forest Lodge was the choice.

William has imposed a 150-acre “Security Buffer Zone” around the already enormous property surrounding the mansion. In doing so, he banished locals from areas they’ve traversed and enjoyed freely for decades. And it’s within Windsor Great Park, which is reportedly considered public land.

Subscribe now

Edinburgh Live reports, it is “understood that anyone found trespassing in the ‘Serious Organised Crime and Police Act exclusion area’ will face arrest.”

Perhaps in an attempt to make themselves seem less high-handed and imperious, and more down-to-earth and “normal,” William and Catherine claim they don’t have “live-in staff” at Forest Lodge. But if staff live in nearby buildings (which they likely do), that is, in my opinion, a disingenuous and misleading claim. In my view, someone who does household work for you and lives nearby (perhaps even within steps of your front door) is fundamentally the same as “live-in staff.”

Does anyone honestly believe that William and Catherine are going to do all their own cleaning, laundry, and cooking? No, I don’t think so. There must be staff.

Also, isn’t it strange for public figures, especially the future king and queen of a country, to choose to live in a place as relatively isolated as Forest Lodge? Why not live at Windsor Castle? It almost seems like they’re trying to avoid being seen as much as possible. Whatever happened to “we must be seen to be believed”?

Is there something, or even multiple things, they’re trying to hide? Or do they simply believe they can do whatever they want, no matter how much it upsets the public and may be perceived as an abuse of power?

Did you enjoy this article? Please remember to click the like button!

You’re welcome to express your opinions in the comments, but please be polite!

But the odd goings-on have continued. After Kate’s hair suddenly turned a rather peculiar shade of blonde earlier this year, she claimed it was all because of the sun. Yes, seriously. Someone complimented her new look, and she said, “It used to be brown, but it’s gone light in the sunshine.”

Sure, Kate. We believe you. You didn’t dye your hair. It just went “light in the sunshine.”

What do you think? Let me know in the comments! Remember, this is a lighthearted article and all in good fun!

WAIT! Before you go, could you just take a moment to give me a like?

[I state my personal opinions and perspectives in this article. I encourage you to do your own research before reaching conclusions.]

[This article was originally published in one of my other newsletters, Reflections by Samantha Lord, in December 2025.]

I believe that today’s British media is helping them accomplish this objective. Unfortunately, it seems true that the more positive headlines and fewer negative ones there are, the more likely the public is to forget how much most people despised Charles and Camilla in the 1990s and how William was constantly criticized for laziness until 2018.

Their objectives extend beyond the public just forgetting their past injustices and cruelties. Another goal is to get you emotionally invested in a squeaky-clean, honorable vision of the royal family. That way, you will feel offended or even outraged by negative headlines, and journalists in turn may be less likely to write them. Or you may at least subconsciously avoid any of the few negative headlines that break through the carefully controlled British media environment.

The ‘90s

If you’re not old enough to remember the 1990s, you might not know the full extent of Charles and Camilla’s poor (abusive, in my opinion) treatment of Diana.

Personally, I find it incredible that the woman who now sits on the British throne (and who, by some accounts, enjoys her position just a little bit too much), is the very same person who spread rumors that Diana was “unstable” and couldn’t be believed. This was intended to cruelly discredit and isolate a young woman who she knew was emotionally suffering, apparently just to make it easier for herself and Charles to continue their sordid affair. Of course, Charles also spread these rumors, apparently heedless of how it would affect his traumatized, psychologically wounded wife.

Charles hired a PR guru called Mark Bolland to “rehabilitate” his and Camilla’s image, and as they say, the rest is history. Today, we’re encouraged to wistfully regret that Charles wasn’t able to marry Camilla in the first place.

Well, I’m sorry to burst any royalist bubbles, but that is patently absurd. From her youth, Camilla was known to be obsessed with social status. However, she knew that she wasn’t aristocratic enough to be considered a suitable royal bride, and so she followed in the footsteps of her great-grandmother, Alice Keppel, the favorite mistress of Edward VII.

Camilla was perfectly happy being married to Andrew Parker-Bowles and having the status of “royal mistress” to Charles. In fact, her school classmates have said that she used to boast about her connection to Alice. Indeed, it seems that being a royal mistress was Camilla’s ambition.

There are reports today that Charles and Camilla show signs of not really liking each other. They live on separate properties. Camilla reportedly primarily lives at Ray Mill, a house she owns, away from Charles.

Meghan Arrives and William Springs into Action

William banks on you forgetting that pre-2018, he by many accounts lived up to the nickname, “Work Shy Willy.” In fact, in 2017, he skipped the Commonwealth Day service and embarked on a wild skiing trip. He was photographed cavorting with blonde models, Kate nowhere in sight.

I feel the main reason that William didn’t like Meghan was the fact that she showed him up. I suppose he couldn’t continue being “Workshy Willy” with the glaring public contrast of Meghan and Harry stepping out to do constant, high-profile engagements, while he and Catherine did few.

I believe it was around that time when he and Kate finally started spending much more time at their Kensington Palace “apartment.” It was as late as 2017 when they made the transition to “full-time working royals.” There were reports that he only worked about 20 hours a week in his air ambulance job before that.

I think they probably would have waited several more years to become full-time working royals if they hadn’t needed to compete with Meghan and Harry.

Of course, this isn’t Meghan’s fault. William and Kate should have started taking their responsibilities seriously years earlier. But there was nothing motivating them to do so. It’s rather difficult for them to use their children as an excuse when they had a live-in nanny and household staff.

British journalists had no hesitation whatsoever in calling out William and Kate before Meghan came on the scene. But after Meghan and Harry got married, the palace seemed to push for a new narrative: “William and Kate = good, Harry and Meghan = bad.”

William was suddenly catapulted from “Workshy Willy” to “the Good Prince.” Meghan, who wanted to do royal work from the get-go, was seen as a threat. So, William finally had to start doing more engagements. After all, how would it look for the Duke of Cambridge to hardly do any engagements while a new, married-in member of the family was enthusiastically doing many?

But it seems that he may have retaliated via the media.

Awareness is the Enemy of Manipulation

I think it’s quite evident that the royal family and its media team think that the public is rather stupid. They must believe that British people (and the whole world) will automatically go along with their preferred narratives, because of their power and prestige.

Of course, these kinds of tactics aren’t exclusive to the royal family. We sadly see them practiced by many extremely powerful people and institutions. That is one reason media literacy is so important.

Please like and restack to let me know you enjoyed this article! Comments are welcome, but please be polite!

As much as I enjoy writing The Royal Tea Report, it takes a significant amount of time to research and write each article. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber. Paid subscribers get these perks:

• You can start new discussion threads in Chat

• You can comment in paid members-only comments sections

• You have full access to paid members-only posts (and all the free ones too, of course!)

Subscribe now

Also, you can support my work with a donation via Buy Me a Coffee. 🙏 I appreciate each and every penny.

Buy Me a Coffee

Thanks so much! And if you’re new to The Royal Tea Report and haven’t subscribed yet, you can sign up below. 😊

Subscribe now