Inside the Prince Harry Book Blitz and What It Means for the Monarchy 59:40

On September 28th, the Global Citizen Festival will gather thousands of people who took action to end extreme poverty. Join Post Malone, Doja Cat, Lisa, Jelly Roll, and Raul Alejandro as they take the stage with world leaders and activists to defeat poverty, defend the planet, and demand equity. Download the Global Citizen app today and earn your spot at the festival. Learn more at globalcitizen.org slash bots. It's on!

From New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network, this is the Twitter furniture fire sale with a thousand percent less desperation. Just kidding. This is On with Kara Swisher and I'm Kara Swisher. And I'm Naima Raza. I think you mean 420,000 percent less desperation. Can't make weed jokes in Britain. Anyway, we're actually in Britain. We'll talk about that in a second. But just in case you don't know, on Tuesday, Twitter kicked off an auction of its designer furniture, its kitchen goods.

all kinds of electronic equipment, phone booths and things like that to make ends meet for Elon, which I am going to participate in. I would really like to buy the giant blue bird that they had out front in the lobby. Not a womb chair? I would have thought you would want a womb chair. I'm going to get a womb chair, too. There's very expensive furniture that these companies put in. And Twitter had very classy furniture. Well, now they've got to pay the rent. Exactly. So I'm going to try to get some. I'm sure people will be, there's a lot of people bidding, but I'm hoping to get just a little piece of Twitter history.

But anyways, we are not here to talk about womb chairs or standing desks. We're here to talk about thrones and specifically about the fate of the British royal family, which has never felt more fragile, I think, than this moment. That's because the revelations in the fallout from Prince Harry's book Spare, which offers a rare glimpse into the machinations of the monarchy and the media machine that surrounds it. And, Cara, you have been hearing it. Yes, everywhere. We're taping from London. Everyone here knows.

denies it, but they're hate reading it. It sold more than 1.4 million copies in its first day. It's really interesting, but we did a pivot event last night and everyone denied reading it and then said they hated it. So it was kind of an interesting juxtaposition.

and I've been traveling around London with my good friend Brooke Hammerling, who's been reading the book to me, unfortunately. I hear it all the time. She's sitting in the room with us today. Welcome, Brooke. Hi, Cara. Hi, Naima. So, Naima, explain who Brooke is. Yeah, so Brooke is a good friend of ours. By the way, you're very lucky Brooke is reading this book to you in her soft voice. Prince Harry has been reading the book to me. But when she's not reading Cara books...

Brooke Hammerling is a strategic communications maven who has helped some of the biggest names in tech and beyond launch, grow, and navigate crisis. Yes. Brooke has a fantastic newsletter. It's called Pop Culture Mondays. She has an accompanying podcast. Yeah, I've been a guest on it. So has Naima. But really, Brooke is really smart about pop culture, virality, media machine. She's worked with celebrities. She's worked on all kinds of issues.

She's really my primary source for all things royals. She's spent a lot of time thinking about it. So talk to us a little bit about it before we go into the interview. I mean, I obviously have a lot of time on my hands. I don't have 5,000 children like you do. But you have 5,000 companies. You know, I think, I mean, it's so complex. And I do think that the English, you know, they say, oh, we don't want to hear you guys talking about it. That's all they're talking about. I mean, I was at the gym this morning and

The guys were saying in the gym about how this is a result of being the sons of Diana because she was overindulgent with them as a mother. So it's just like everybody. Yeah, everybody has a take on it. It is fascinating. You know, I think there's been a lot of commentary about how powerful silence might be. But this is a story about a boy in grief. And I can relate. I lost my parents young. And I think when you have that grief, he's sort of frozen in time as a 12 year old.

12-year-old. And he is a boy in very much a boy acting out. But Harry and Meghan is this marriage across the Atlantic. And some of the stuff is getting lost in translation. Like even the joke about the heir and the spare is a British tongue-in-cheek joke that in American culture is, oh, my God, how could you say that to your child? There is this culture class across the pond. And you have this kind of outsider American woman who looks different.

is different, is pulling a thread. And the question is, can she bring the whole curtain crashing down? And we're talking to some people who know and have covered this a lot. But what is the communications problem here? Because they look like gold diggers, essentially, right? Yeah, I mean, the communications problem goes back long, long before any of this. I mean, the communications problem goes back to even before they were married, when they were still very much loved in England, in the world.

This problem of, you know, the leaks and I think what is talked about in the book and the sort of the relationship between the crown and the media and the tabloids. But, you know, Megan didn't grow up in this world. She's grown up as an actress and an American and we say what we think and we think what we say and...

They have had a communication sort of problem from the beginning. She was not fitting in. And the comms has just gotten worse and worse and worse, from the family on her side to the dresses not fitting, the fights. I mean, these are all things. And it's...

been a steady stream of sort of manipulation of the public to sort of start to really dislike them. And there's been and they have handled it incorrectly. My strategy would have been to stay silent, join some boards, be some really do impactful things for the world, the environment, for the things that you mean for instead of coming out talking about sort of this gossipy stuff. But they're trying to reclaim the narrative because the thing about The Crown is that it's

public property for the Brits. They are part of the public domain. Yeah, and they're paid for by taxpayers. I mean, this is a significant institution paid for by taxpayers. And so the obsession with these people, with these individuals, is it all justified? Yeah, I mean, I've spent so much time here, and I think, you know, Americans are obsessed with the royals. People in England are obsessed with the Americans' view of the royals. I mean, it's just circular. I think I understand taking back your narrative. It is an incredibly powerful thing to do, and I respect it.

I think, though, it's a slippery slope, and they've not necessarily handled it correctly. When taking back the narrative is tit for tat, it doesn't necessarily mean when you take back ownership of your story to then blame it on others. And that is not going to be looked on kindly when you're speaking about the future king, the future queen. Sure, but, you know...

It has worked. They've sold millions and millions of books, most successful book launch. Netflix, one billion hours of viewing on their documentary. It's worked from the money standpoint and the power. But at what cost? Are they going to have no relationship with their family?

And that's, I think, what's the trend. Well, seemingly we don't have one right now. So it's an interesting thing. Or are they going to take down the monarchy? And will they? Which one of our guests today thinks that it's possible. She's warned about it. Last question before we get to the interview. In terms of crisis, how big a PR crisis is this? It depends on who you're looking at, right? I mean, it's a pretty, it's,

Absolutely. I mean, we've all heard the salacious bits, but I too, Naima... Yes, I know. You read them to me. I know. Really, really good ones. But I'm listening to Harry read it, and it's really different when you hear his voice. And he's sitting in that box very much like this, and he... You know, there's a meme going around about what the audio engineers were thinking when he was, you know, equating... Talking about his penis. Well, and everything that he's saying, and, you know... But there's a lot of also...

beautiful stories that are memories of a little child and his upbringing and so forth. But I think the PR crisis is extraordinary for the royal family because there's just, it's opening up, it's that term and we say in comms that people cringe on, but it's opening up the kimono, if you will. And the kimono is wide open on this one. So to speak. Yeah.

Moving on. Well, the crown is wide open, at least. Anyway, we are going to be getting to this interview. Yes. So we're going to have two guests joining you. They are Catherine Mayer, who's a journalist who's written for The Economist, Time Magazine, The Guardian. And she authored the biography Charles, Heart of a King, which was actually published in 2015. It's been re-released just now. And there was a bit of a kerfuffle when the book came out where the court tried to squash it a little bit. So we'll hear her talk about that.

And then speaking of opening the kimono, Patrick, a.k.a. Patty Harverson, who these days runs a communications firm called Milltown PR, actually spent roughly a decade inside of the palace walls. So from 2004 to 2013, he was the communications chief for Charles, then Prince of Wales.

And he's been credited for overhauling Prince Charles' public image, bringing Camilla into the kind of the love of the nation. And he's someone who's extremely close to the royal family. Right. Who has a very sharp take on the media. Yeah, it's interesting. I'm really looking forward to telling these people because a lot of it has been sucked up into the naughty bits, which, of course, that's how we do everything now. But it is about power. It's about this symbolic thing. It's about celebrity power.

It's about grief. And there's a lot going on here beyond just gossiping, which, of course, the tabloids here in Britain, you know, even though they talk about how terrible it is, are making bank on this thing themselves. I mean, he wrote a book for tabloids, which is so ironic, right? He's criticizing all the tabloids, but literally the pieces in this book are meant for tabloids. Well, he's been inside the machine. They know how to monetize the machine. The question is, will a woman who's an outsider, a son who feels...

betrayed, be able to make a dent, change the way the monarchy is run over time? Because there's a reevaluation of the palace's role in kind of overseas domains of the Commonwealth. There's also a reevaluation out in Scotland and Wales. Like, there's chat. And there's a reevaluation here in England about the House of Lords. The question is, is this institution, which is the last kind of powerful, strong, very well-funded monarchy of the West—

going to remain resilient. But ultimately, for me, it's about, you know, they call the monarchy the firm. This is about the firm and all its companies. It's about money. I'm sorry. It really is. And I want to talk about that and power. Great. We'll take a quick break. Please mind the gap. And we'll be back with the panel. And Kara, Brooke, and I will see you after the interview.

Thank you both for being here today. One of the things that's been really hard to ignore being here in Britain and also in the United States is this book, which has turned out to be an unusual hit. I was surprised myself. It's also a hit on television. Netflix had one billion hours of watching the documentary about Harry and Meghan. And also the book has been the fastest launch in history, I think, and has given a real boost to bookstores and everything else. It's become sort of...

topic that has overwhelmed a lot of things. And I want to talk about that. So first of all, I want each of you to give me a short background and your experience with the court. And why don't we start with you, Catherine? Well, I used to work for Time magazine, but even before that, I was...

covering the royals pretty much for 30 years, initially not finding it an interesting topic, in fact, kind of despising it, which I now understand is one of the problems with the quality of journalism around it. And it took me until I really started having to look at it to understand quite how difficult it is and how important it is as a topic. Difficult because unlike other publications

figures, unlike other institutions that receive public money, there is very little transparency because of the anomaly of an institution that has living people living their private lives in public. In 2015, I published a biography of the then Prince Charles that was based on

at least a couple of years of intensive following him around, but many more years of really watching them closely. And I continue to do that, but I would not count myself in any way part of the royal press pack. The press pack, which is very different, which is more titillation, factoids and things like that, which is a complex. It's a very lucrative complex for the tabloids. Paddy?

Yeah, so I started working for the Royal Family in 2004. I was communication secretary to the then Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, and his sons, William and Harry. And it was a time before...

Prince Charles had married Camilla, who became the Duchess of Cornwall, and it was when William and Harry were just about to leave or had left education and were starting their public life. And for 10 years, almost 10 years, I supported them, dealing with all the media interest in them and globally. And really, it sort of came down to sort of two elements, sort of promoting the work they did in their capacities as senior royals, but also sort of protecting the

their private lives and their personal lives from, you know, the extraordinary levels of interest and sometimes intrusion. Why did you do that? Why did you say, oh, yes, this is what I'd like to do? It was odd because I hadn't really focused much on the royal family or the monarchy up till then. I'd been a journalist for many years and then I'd been head of communications at Manchester United Football Club, which is quite a different world to the palace.

But when they approached me, I just thought it was a really interesting role and interesting challenge. And I think the opportunity to work for sort of two generations, not just the prince who's heir to the throne, but also for his sons was just something I felt that...

I couldn't turn down because it probably wouldn't come around again and I would find it interesting. And do you know what? It was an extraordinary experience, great fun, took me all over the world in all sorts of amazing places and I learned a lot. So I cherish the memory. Did you think of it like a regular comms job? Yeah, definitely not a regular comms job. I mean, there's traditional elements of telling a story about roles and responsibilities and the institution, the part it plays in national life.

But the key thing to remember was that at the heart of it is a family, sort of flesh and blood, you know, human beings. And I think one of the most important thing is to sort of tune into that human wavelength as well as the sort of institutional side. So it does, it did present and continues to present a very particular challenge on the communications front.

If I may, I mean, there's an interesting thing also about that. At the heart, there's a family, but it's also at the heart, there's a sort of series of interlocking medieval institutions. So it's not one unified royal family. Each of the principles will have different people around them. And of course, it's

It means an institution that is always headed by people who have never had experience of normal working life. And a lot of their lives are about trying to understand the world around them through this incredible distance that they're born to. And you worked with

Paddy when you were doing this book. I did, yes. When you were doing the book about Charles. I don't want to blow smoke, but Paddy is one of the sanest people I ever encountered within the palace system. And very straight. And there could be transparency between us. And one of the things that is

lacking now is transparency. Now, Paddy, you left working for the Crown in 2013. You were back in the media after the Queen's funeral saying how ready Charles was to be king. Have you advised him since he took the palace reins? I haven't, no. I've not seen him or spoken to him and, you know, I'm not involved officially anymore. You said officially. Are you unofficially involved? I'm always there if they need me but actually they haven't particularly been calling me because they've got their own advisors. Yeah. Um,

But they should. The charm offensive, I think, is interesting because when you work in the palace, you know, they won't have sat down and saying, we need a charm offensive. What they'll do is say, right, we need to get out there and show the king at work and the queen, of course. And watching them, a lot of what he and she have been doing have been very similar to what they did before. But it comes with a sort of new aura and new significance. But.

You know, as we always used to say beforehand, he will do the role when he becomes king in his own way. He won't exactly copy his mother because of his personality is different. His approach is more informal. So let's talk about the revelations coming out of spirit. How do you think each of the characters comes off? Because it does get I talk about reductiveness a lot.

Trump has brought the U.S. into a – everything's very black and white. It's not complex. It's not nuanced. Patty, why don't you start? How you think these revelations are coming off? Is there a – because it's sort of who's the villain here and it keeps shifting and who's the hero, but I don't think that's the case at all. I think it's a deeply complex story of a –

of a family who has a lot of issues and also an institution that people have a lot of issues with. But go ahead. I mean, it's not that binary. It never is. But the media wants it to be. You know, I think if there is a villain, you know, clearly the media comes across as probably the most. I think it's worth distinguishing between, you know, what the book says about inter-family relationships and breakdowns, you know, which, you know, I think are family matters and which would remain private. But there you go.

And what he says about the relationship between the monarchy and indeed the family and the media and how the media reports, which I think is a perfectly valid questions to ask and and to debate. The great irony, of course, is that when I was there for almost 10 years, the one thing that we spent most of the time protecting was the private lives and the personal relationships. Now, of course, they're feasting on the very thing that we used to protect.

Right, because he's letting them out. Because it's the juiciest stuff. Because I think it's fair to say the public probably is most interested in that rather than the serious stuff of constitutional relevance. So, yeah, it's... Well, public interest has long been defined by what the public is interested in. But, you know, I mean, as a journalist, you're invited to go and see whichever member of the family it is doing something valuable and worthy.

And most of the journalists there will be there to try and find something that isn't on that agenda, but to try and find the story that, you know, oh, look, they said this. They said this off script or somebody dressed as a banana came up. Well, that's normal. I mean, because some of those events are, they're sort of, I mean, I've been to technology. Here, am I giving money? Listen, I'm not saying, I'm saying that in a way, this is part of the story.

part of the challenge and problem of the institution is that you can't, from those individual events, you can't really see the value. You have to see it much more in the round than that. And one of the reasons I actually got to see as much of Charles as I did is

is because I realized very early on that if you go to the sort of big popular set piece events, there are hundreds of journalists with sharp elbows and you don't actually see anything. You hear a lot of what other journalists think. That's true. That's a common problem with journalists. But with Charles, for example, he was doing all sorts of stuff like visiting Aramaic churches or dry stone walling places.

organizations and I'd be the only journalist there. So, you know, I had lots of conversations with him and other people. Sure. So you get more stuff there. But in the context of the Netflix documentary and the books, you caution people not to discount these as, quote, a light story about British tourist attraction. Yeah. Instead, you've worn, let me quote you, it is possibly something that will mark the beginning of the end of the monarchy. I'd love each of your thoughts on that. Catherine, explain why you said it. And Patty, what do you think of that?

So the monarchy, it reigns by consent in theory. But a lot of that consent is not a particularly active one. The monarchy has generally kind of polled for years and years about 75% popularity, pretty standard. But if you drill down into that...

Of that, there will be people who are really passionate about it, but there will also be a large number of people who think it's probably quite a good thing, but they don't really care strongly one way or the other.

And what doesn't serve it well is when there are things that make people care passionately against it. And there have been a few things in recent years that had the power to do that. And so this is sort of the nuclear bomb of that. Megan and Harry, that story, irrespective of whether you – which polarized side of this debate you were on –

had that impact, particularly on younger demographics and on people of colour, who at one point felt excited, felt a connection to the monarchy that they hadn't felt before. And in the disintegration of that dream...

now see themselves alienated. They're losing audience. Patty, talk about that. So you were credited as having overhauled Charles' image and Camilla's and it worked. Do you think what she was talking about, these allegations of racism within the court and other revelations in the book about abuse and leaking and this and that will undo that work?

No. I mean, I don't want to take them lightly, but it's really important to remind everyone that the allegation of racism, which was an interpretation of a comment by one member of the royal family that, interestingly enough, is not in the book. So I wonder what happened to that. The institution needs to be more diverse. It needs to be fleeter of foot. It needs to be more modern. And I think it's aware of that. Change takes time and it's not good necessarily at rapid change and probably nor should it be. I have great faith in the monarchy and I think

There's nothing in the past year that has fundamentally undermined faith in the fitness of the principles at the top to lead it. So I don't think it's an existential threat. You don't? No, not at all. And I think also this generational thing can be overplayed.

I think there is, I think in this country, still plenty of support from the young people. I mean, it was worth saying that politicians would kill for 75% approval. I would also say that there is a general feeling that as people get older, they get more conservative and therefore more comfortable with conservative institutions in the traditional sense. So I'm confident, I'm not complacent about that, but I'm confident that the institution has a strong future. But it must, the point about

Reigning by consent is absolutely right. So how do you do that? You constantly demonstrate the value you bring to the country and indeed the realms. And that's what they do. And the media sits really importantly in the middle of that challenge, which is to tell that story, you have to go out and show what you do. Are you surprised by the level of interest and the sales? It's communicating something because...

By the way, the book details a top member of Camilla Charles shared comms team who, quote, devised and launched a campaign of getting good press for Pa and Camilla at the expense of bad press for us. Is he describing you? No. Oh, God, no. That's actually quite well known. This is somebody called Mark Boland who came in at that. Before me. But, I mean, can I say, you know, when I was talking about the challenges for the monarchy...

Interestingly, the book barely mentions Prince Andrew and the involvement with Epstein. Jeffrey Epstein. Jeffrey Epstein. That story is not over, but it's also, it was incredibly damaging. And then there have been a series of revelations around...

Prince Charles, sorry, I'm saying Prince because when he was Prince, Prince Charles' fundraising. And none of these individually have the power to derail the monarchy, nor do I think that it's in any imminent peril. What I was saying is that it's definitely in peril in some of the overseas realms. You know, you've already seen that in the Caribbean, there are

several of the remaining realms are discussing replacing the monarch with an elected head of state.

And that may also follow in places like New Zealand and Australia. But this is more a kind of longer term thing because also Charles until recently has been the future. He is now the present. And you are now looking at William and Kate, of course, as the succession. And that's why the damage from some of the allegations in the book, but more widely from this inflamed environment,

I think it would be a mistake for anybody in the palace system to take it lightly. One of the things you talked about is the portrayal of women as conniving in court, which goes back a long way, right? This is not a new, fresh thing because Megan gets demonized in the tabloids. Camilla gets demonized in this book and also has been in the tabloids. Talk a little bit about playing into those tropes around women, particularly Patti.

Well, I think it just reveals the sort of sexism on everyone's part. And, you know, on that list of women, you go back to, you know, Princess Diana, who was seen as obviously clearly troubled and hurt greatly by so much, but also having played the game with the media. So I think if you were speaking to journalists, they'd say there's some truth in that. But it's also just the good old fashioned and wrong sexism of particularly the British media. Really important point to make about the media and the royal sort of rat pack is,

It's not. It's really wrong. And I think this is where the book... Wait, is the royals the Rat Pack or the media? The media. We're often called the Royal Rat Pack, which is really unfair because the Royal Rota, to be boring, is just the same as the White House press corps, just the same as the Downing Street press corps. Which there are criticisms like that. But that includes, you know, the BBC, that includes the Times, that includes the Telegraph. You know, this is not just about the tabloids. It is a much broader collection of journalists, many of whom do...

very good job and take it very seriously in spite of the challenges that poses. So I think there is absolutely right. And the book is absolutely right to call out some of the behavior and some of it was, you know, I was, I was, my phone was hacked by the news of the world. Some of the behavior that went, that was just both illegal and immoral by some of the tabloids at length for many years. And that was wrong. Is it better now marginally? I still think they're up to no good, but it is wrong to demonize the whole media, um,

because there's many of them who do a really good job and who care about reporting properly. See, while I agree with that, I'd actually go at this from the other angle and say, I'm saying, yes, it also includes the broadsheets and broadcasters and whatever. And one of the things I would say is that there has been a sort of coarsening of the whole

discourse across all different kinds of media. And, you know, the carrying of these stories that are kind of proxies for culture war and also the misogyny and the racism.

Whatever, again, you think about the truth or otherwise of the account that Harry's given in spare, I sat down and went through the media that greeted Meghan's arrival in public life. And it is absolutely eye-popping. I mean, there are famous headlines that he quotes, like the Straight Outta Compton headline about her saying,

But it is everywhere and it's sometimes in things that appear at first glance to be benign. So, for example, a fashion item that was talking about the supposed need in palace circles to wear so-called nude tights.

But it was just a way to talk about her skin colour. I think one thing I felt, you know, and I was long since gone from the palace when this was all happening, was struck me, and I think it's always overlooked, that there is sadly a deep strain of anti-Americanism in the British media, especially the tabloids. And that was a feature as well. I'm not saying there wasn't misogyny. I certainly wasn't saying there wasn't

prejudice and bias on race. But there's also an anti-Americanism, you know, and here's an actress from Los Angeles. And it's just an instinctive pushback on that. They want the home county's girl to come in. And we mustn't overlook that. What happens inside of House to Repair for this kind of tell-all? We think they'd get a little better at it at this point, given there's a controversy, you know, whether...

goes way back. I mean, Wallace Simpson, I mean, that was a controversy. Well, that presumes that they've got it wrong. I mean, I have to think that their strategy of staying above the fray and not commenting on private matters, almost entirely private matters and allegations is the right one. And, you know, they've got in the King and Queen and in the Prince and Princess of Wales, the right people to do that. So I don't think they've got it wrong. They have, I know, because, you know, I've spoken to a few of them, you know, in the staff, they've talked a lot about it. They've

war-gamed it, they've strategized it, but in the end they came to the conclusion that... The conclusion didn't do nothing, but they're strategizing, there's war-gaming, and Catherine, in your book you wrote about the leaks. In this case, they're kind of commenting without commenting, right? Sources said, sources close to the palace. Dignified silence, I mean... But it's

But if not, there is also sources said everywhere. Exactly. So every piece that talks about the palace maintaining a dignified silence then goes on to quote palace sources and friends close to the royals. But they're not necessarily sources from within the palace. And I know this for a fact because of the last few weeks I have been slightly closer to it. The palace has rightly said we are not even giving you any guidance. And journalists will confirm that.

Unfortunately, what they are are sources which are often former palace people or people who claim to be close, and journalists are happy to quote them as such. So, Paddy, obviously you do still have Harry saying things. It's not sources said anymore. It's the source, right? And he's trying to reclaim his nerve. That's his story. Do you think it will succeed, or what would you imagine? Well, it depends what you mean by success. I don't know what he regards as success. I mean, I wouldn't want to guess, really. Yeah.

The coverage has been phenomenal. The sales have been phenomenal. The interest is huge. Of course it is because, as I said, there's always been this desire for media and people to look behind the curtain, know what's really going on inside the household and the homes and in the minds of, and he's shared a lot of that.

I think this will pass. The one thing that the royal family can do is play the long game. I don't know what Prince Harry has next and hopefully a period now of quiet reflection. But what the royal family can do...

And that cannot be overlooked. That is quite powerful. And this is for a British audience. I recognize in America, it's very different. You know, to use the wrong phrase, there's no votes for us in America. What matters are the United Kingdom and the realms and to a certain extension, the Commonwealth.

And, you know, and that's where the work of the royal family and the monarchy and the institution is really aimed at.

for somebody like me who is a biographer who has trawled every single available source and had to work very hard to get to sources that were not strictly available to have that much laid out like that. And it means that in the fullness of time, irrespective of whether Harry manages to reclaim his narrative, and I'm very skeptical that anyone in the public eye ever really fully reclaims their narrative,

It will be there as a source for historians in the future. And I think there's a question whether it can be a trusted source, you know, because this idea of one person's truth and another person's truth, you know, obviously is debatable. There is the truth.

So I think that's an important point to make. Indeed, but you know... That's our feelings, just so you know, that's a US thing. But you also know from reading it that there are details in there that are true that have never been in the public domain. And some that aren't. And some that aren't. No, I know. But so that will be a job of...

of future historians as well. So, Paddy, in an interview with ABC, you said the Queen's funeral, which it's amazing how much stuff has been going on, would quote probably the start of a healing period, although you caution it might be slow going. Now, it certainly seems to be glacial at this moment. You are still optimistic. You think the long game is the way to go. I want to be because, you know, I'm

worked for and with Prince Harry and Prince William for almost 10 years and their father. And we did a lot together. They were very close. And the story of the two brothers was a very powerful one. And, you know, the loving father and his two sons. So to see that fractured is genuinely heartbreaking for me. But I am hopeful, yes. I think it'll take time. But I don't want to give up on that hope. There is a beautiful story, even if it's unpleasant. Yeah. I mean, gosh, I mean, you know, what the boys went through. And I call them the boys because that's what they were when I started.

Because they were boys at the time of the loss of their mother and the very public nature of that and what caused it. And at heart, understandably, completely, the two princes believe that the media drove their mother to her death. So, yeah, it's a tragic story in that sense. It's a family story. It's a story that...

One of the reasons it's so powerful is that many people can relate to whether about loss and grief or whether about, you know, brotherly love turning into something else, whether around the difficulty of having a relationship with your father who works very hard. You know, there's so much there that we can relate to.

Which is why it's so powerful. I think so, too. Do you think the monarchy is getting any feedback? I mean, during Diana's death, the queen shifted rather dramatically. Do you think there's anything of that happening here or just let's be quiet until it goes away? They will be seeking feedback and they do listen to outside voices. Yeah.

But they – I mean, one of the things I think members of the Royal Family, the senior ones do is rightly follow a lot of instinct, what feels right for them. And they're resilient. They're a very resilient family. It's a very resilient institution. It has been around a long time. As I said, no one wants to be complacent or take this lightly. But, you know, I'm confident that it –

It will be here for many, many decades and probably centuries to come. It has been around a long time. And of course, on the point of feedback, that can also complicate things because these are courts. And I referred to them as sort of medieval structures. And one of the problems is that they don't always hear what they need to hear because

There are courtiers vying for popularity. It reminds me of, I don't know, Elon Musk or, you know, same thing. All these tech moguls. They all have them, you know. Oligarchs have them. Prime ministers have them. I say this all the time. What's the problem? The people around them. Yeah. Well, they're also flawed individuals. Yes, and people get told what people think they want to hear rather than what they need to hear. And there's also competition between the different courts, though that is a constantly shifting picture.

I mean, that looks very different after the Queen now. Before you had several different sort of power bases. Now there are really only two. I think, yeah. I mean, I would say having worked there when there were three royal households there.

You know, people talk about competition and there is for just sort of, you know, airtime and front pages. And that's only natural. You know, if you're doing something, you want to get the best press out of it. There's also a huge amount of collaboration. And I think that doesn't get reported on. Right, right. That's a little like the White House. Yeah, weekly meetings, you know, endless amount. And then big occasions and big strategies even. And then normal jealousies of coverage. Which is very natural. We're going to get to the media next.

Catherine, you've been characterized as a rare defender of Meghan in the UK. Literally nobody would put their hand up for her at all, which is funny because your work hardly defends that really. So why is it rare to be a Meghan supporter? And are you one or what? How do you look? Because your piece was very nuanced. I think that's hard now. You either have to hate her or... I don't think it's my job to be a supporter or a defender. I'm here to analyze. I mean, I know the difference between me and a lot of the people writing about this is

is I don't know her, but I know all the other principals involved to a greater or lesser extent.

It makes you see things differently. But then again, also, it's a very odd thing that I agree with Paddy about the never forgetting that there's a family at the center of this, that there are human beings at the center of this. And I think a lot of the polarized coverage is also dehumanizing coverage. So everyone becomes a cartoon. So the idea that I would go out and defend Meghan actually is something that in a funny way...

would not serve Meghan any better than any of the rest of them. Because exactly, it takes away the nuance, it takes away a sense of what this is, this very peculiar institution that is built around a family permanently on display. Well, each gets to be a character, right? Yeah. Harry told Nairns and Cooper that tabloids were laid out for the girls to read over breakfast. They're part of...

That too. Like how do you avoid it if that's going to be – That is difficult. Is that true? They read it over breakfast? Not all of them, no. The senior ones don't generally. William Harry used to and I remember thinking that wasn't possibly wise. Or healthy. If you said they didn't, then you'd say they're out of touch. They kind of can't win, can they? So – and you know –

They generally, like me, start on the back pages with the sports and the football results. So, you know, they're not just pouring over just the royal coverage. So the relationship is a very difficult one. And I think you mentioned at the beginning, fundamentally, the royal family sells, right? It sells everything because there's so much interest in it. And we just have to, you know, understand and accommodate and live with that. And sometimes that interest, that commercial drive,

goes down the wrong path and becomes something quite serious. Right. Catherine, you've written Harry's obsession with tabloids meant he missed the tabloidization of the broadsheet, which was interesting. Talk about what you mean by that, because one of the things Brooke just mentioned before you got here was that he hates the tabloids, and yet this book was made for tabloids, right? It's kind of like got little bits, you can pull things out. He really understands the...

that world quite a bit, I would think. I don't know. On the book itself and the way it gets pulled out, that's precisely what I think that the publisher and he were trying to avoid. So I think he misunderstood the way, even if it hadn't been leaked. It's very naive. It's terribly naive. And one of the things that is kind of heartbreaking about watching all of this is the level of, you know, it's a moth against a flame, isn't it? Yeah.

He released it at midnight UK time, so the tabloids wouldn't be able to use it, for example. Yeah, but I mean... The moth, I guess, so he's the moth, presumably. Yes. They'll just consume him no matter what he does. Yes. I mean, it was bound to happen, however it happened, that sections would be taken out of context and weaponized.

And it doesn't work like that reclaiming a narrative. It takes a lot more work than one book. However, in terms of it being just a problem of tabloids, it isn't. One of the things that's happened, as you know, is that the –

loss of income to other forms of mainstream media has meant an awful lot of cutting of staff. There is no longer the same level of fact-checking or anything else, but there is also a tabloidization in terms of being driven by the online world, being driven by clickbait. Opinion has tended to replace

Right. But what you're talking about is social media, whether it's TikTok, whether it's, I mean... But mainstream... Mainstream has become like social media.

one that is supposed to be pro-monarchy, but ironically, I don't think is doing the monarchy much good either. Right, right. You're talking the British Times, not the New York Times, just for Americans. I am, indeed. So, Patty, how has social media changed the coverage, especially the Royals? Did you think about it? That was sort of the period you were in there, right? It sort of got really crazy after 2013, but... Yeah, it was early days when I was there. I mean, interestingly enough, the one thing, of course, social media has done and digital media generally has given...

including institutions like the Royal Family, a platform themselves to tell their own story very powerfully. I remember we did some early work on social platforms that was hugely successful. And I remember having a conversation with William and Harry years ago where they said, look, why don't we just publish our own newspaper and put the truth out there? And I suppose, you know, Harry's book is a good example of that. So social media is not all negative. It does give you the opportunity to control the narrative and tell the story on your terms.

But it also, of course, has given voice, rightly so, to millions if not billions of people. And then that gives – I think one of the worst things is that it has given the media a source it never had, which was occasionally the journalists would go out and stalk someone in the street for the old-fashioned Vox Pop. They don't have to leave their desk now. They know what everyone is thinking or those who want to. And so they can just pick and choose what they want to fit the narrative to fit their agenda.

So the hostility, for example, against any individual member of the royal family, they can just go and find what they want online and say people are furious. So the word that you see probably in most tabloid headlines is fury. Paddy mentioned having his phone hacked. I mean, one of the things about hacking, of course, was that it was an alternative to journalism. It was the laziest thing you can imagine, a shortcut. And one of the people involved in it was known as the Eternal Flame because he never went out.

Of the office. Of the office. And now you actually have people who sit there and read Twitter and they construct their entire pieces around that. It's more toxic than that. You wrote a poignant essay in 2017, Catherine, about the coverage around the suicide of your friend Michael Hutchence, singer. Yeah.

Can you talk a little bit about the dangers of the celebrity obsession? Because this is a celebrity story. The royals is a celebrity story, too. It's funny. I've been thinking a lot about that. And I mean, one of the things with the royals is they don't want to be seen as celebrities because that, in their eyes, would devalue the institution. But this is exactly where it is placing them in the celebrity world. And Harry writes in Spare about...

trying to, in light of his mother's death, but also sort of trying to drive with paparazzi shooting through the window. And I once tried to drive Michael's Jeep one night. This is in excess. Michael Hutchence. Right. With his partner, Paul Yates, and their tiny baby in the back of the Jeep. And somebody was literally lying across the bonnet of the Jeep firing bullets.

a flash gun into my face as I drove. Drove, unfortunately, with a handbrake on and nearly wrecked the Jeep and nearly drove over the paparazzo. But the point about the coverage of my friends and being in the centre of a story like that is you saw how entirely out of control it was

And how dehumanizing and not only dehumanizing for them, but you understood that we are in a world that sees people in the public eye as less than human. And if you allow yourself to see people in the public eyes less than human, if you allow that sort of resentment of, oh, they have such a lucky life and, you know, oh, they're privileged, that word privilege as if it means people can't have pain.

Then what happens to people who don't have platforms? What happens to everyone else? It is dehumanizing for everyone. Patty, is that a real danger of what's happened here is that this has become a game? Or do you feel like it's sort of it's out of the box that these are celebrities, the royals are celebrities, they're treated like this, they're treated like characters?

Yes, to an extent. There's nothing one can do about that. But I think I remember a colleague being with

Prince William and Kate in Los Angeles at some Hollywood event and all the Hollywood stars were lining up to meet them in sort of slight awe. So there is a sort of, rightly or wrongly, another level above that and sort of an elevated position. So it isn't quite the same. But yes, I think I really take up your point there about

dehumanizing because I always come back to the heart of this, a human beings and a family. And I think we should understand and respect and give a bit more space to that because, you know, they are born into these lives. They have no choice over it. And I think we need for all of them, cut them more slack and more sympathy and give them more time and more space to breathe. Except there's this giant book with Harry's face on it. Exactly. That's his choice. But we need to give him more slack perhaps as well and be a bit more understanding. Some ways.

Spare is a book about grief. Exactly. It bookended by the funeral of Diana at the outset and the Queen at the end also. Catherine, you've written a book about this recently, Good Grief, co-authored with your mother as you each lost your husbands in early 2020. And your husband was Andy Gill, of course, from the gang of four. When you read this book, how do you read this book given the experience? Talk briefly about your book and then... Well, it was interesting because...

Yes. I mean, my husband died at the start of the pandemic and he was in a much more minor way than a royal, a public figure, which meant that I also went through grief in the public eye.

And it made me understand how it complicates grief. If everybody knows that the person you love most in the world has died, then just in terms of the numbers of messages you get, for example, it becomes fairly uncontrollable. And the desire to reclaim a narrative is also very understandable to me because you see the person that you love most in the world die.

described back to you by people who didn't know him at all or only knew him slightly. And this is, of course, something that Prince Harry and all the other royals will have experienced. I also thought a lot about memoir and I thought a lot about what to reveal and what not to reveal and where the bounds of privacy are. So reading Spare was an interesting experience for me. I was very moved by the first publication

part of it. It's very interesting. It's a very powerful book when he's talking about his mother's death, when he's talking about that loss, and when he's also talking about his descriptions of Charles actually trying to be a good parent to them. You know, all of that, I'm afraid I'm probably one of the few people in the world who sat there crying while reading the book. But it loses its way quite a lot later on because it then becomes

is trying to make a kind of seamless narrative out of something broken. And I think that's the other thing about grief is

is grief isn't something that lends itself to cogent thinking or through narratives or even thinking about the consequences of what you say and do. And the thing we have to recognize with this whole story is that it is raw and unfinished and therefore trying to shape it into a narrative that makes sense is something that would have defeated anyone, I think. All right, last question for each of you.

Overall impact? Very briefly. Enormous now. I think it will ebb and it depends obviously what happens next. But I think over time, this will be placed in its rightful context. And I think the institution...

will continue to play a critical part in the heart of the British nation and beyond. All right, really briefy. And almost now, coronation coming in May. Not an ideal start for a new king. Very painful personally, I'm sure. There are other problems coming up. And I think the damage to the heir to the throne, to William, is quite significant. Well, on that note, you want to comment on that?

I disagree because I think people see it as brothers who've fallen out rather than something more profound than that. I think your point about the coronation actually may be well-timed because I think you'll see the nation gather again in celebration and I think it'll be a sort of...

a re-ignition of that often dormant sort of passion about the institution and the family. So I see it as a very positive moment. Yeah, and nice tea towels is what I've noted. Anyway, thank you so much. I really appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. It's on! It's on!

Kira, she said other problems are coming up and you didn't ask her. So Brooke and I have a class to Catherine on our way out. And we learned what the other problems were. Brooke, do you want to share? Well, I think, I mean, first of all, I keep thinking about how grateful Andrew must be with this moment in time. Yeah, Prince Andrew. Yeah, Prince Andrew is like, you know, great. Don't be talking about me. Talk all about me.

All you want, Harry and Meghan, do your thing, because it's keeping him out of the story. The Epstein scandal. Well, it's keeping him out of the press on all of this, but the Epstein scandal being obviously paramount. And what she alerted us to is that the gag order of the alleged victim of Virginia Joffreys is up at the end of February. Yeah.

we should anticipate maybe a push of Harry and Meghan. She mentioned both two things. She mentioned the Epstein stuff in the interview, and she also mentioned the scandal around the funding of Prince Charles charities. And those things are going to start maybe pushing Harry and Meghan out of the story. But certainly we would imagine there's press coming, there's a sit-down, there'll be a lot of attention put back onto it. And my feeling is that that's

That's a more important issue, frankly. One of the things that I thought was interesting is talking about it in a bigger context than just the naughty bits, as I said, that it has significance not just about grief, but we'll talk about that in a second, but in terms of the power and the imagery. And one of the things I was really struck by was Patti saying they don't think of themselves as celebrities, but they're the ultimate celebrities.

Right. I mean, if I can reference when we went to the Top Gun premiere in London and it was such an affair and it was a royal affair because Prince William and Kate were there. So it was black tie and formal. We waited more than an hour and a half post when we were supposed to watch the film because of their arrival. And Tom Cruise was.

like a little boy waiting to meet, you know... Top celebrity in the world. Yeah, the biggest movie star in the world was... He was totally overwhelmed by it. He basically jumped into her lap. I mean, it's like, yeah, it's Tom Cruise. It's so crazy. So they are the biggest celebrities and they are known throughout the world. And that's why I thought it was so strange what they said. And...

And wow, what a revelation to say that Harry and the people working with him really naively did not think of how this would be taken out of context. I mean, they would know certainly more than I if he, you know, Patty's worked with Harry and his brother for 10 years. I mean, but that surprises me because it seems like they should be most sophisticated about how the media are going to sort of articulate things.

What about her point that it really does damage? He thought it didn't. Patty thought it didn't. I tend to think he's correct. I don't think this family has endured violence.

decades and decades and decades of scandal. I think it's very hurtful. I mean, though we don't know, there is, there have been rumors. There has been, or at least I believe Harry said, there's enough stuff for another book. And so he's, that the fact that he's kept things out that could make it into another book. So it's the Kardashians. It's this, well, they've become the Kardashians. Isn't it a cash cow at that point for them? It does, it seems like the, you know, the dent

will be made or not made on this first book. Well, it's interesting. I think there was an op-ed in the New York Times last weekend by the daughter of the Reagans, of former President Ronald Reagan and Nancy Reagan, who said... Patty. Patty, right. Patty Reagan, who's good at... She's like, you're going to regret this in 10 or 15 years. You know, you are... Because she had written a book. She had written a memoir that was very, very... Tough. Tough on her family. And she was able to make amends before her father was gone to dementia. But...

She says, this is the stuff over time you'll start to regret. And unfortunately, as a society, we are going to only hold on to those sensationalistic bits. Yeah, which we devour, which we devour. I think one of the things they left out, they talked about the media being a demonic part of it, that these royals jockeying with each other is being a problem. I think it's us that we... It's a system.

It's a society thing. I mean, look, the Daily Mail is an addiction as bad as one that people have with TikTok. To me, at the bottom line of this is all those millions of books sold. The market always tells you what's happening. But I think we're forgetting. I mean, I remember being a teenager and the Diana Andrew Morton book came out and it was as...

You know, it was as if the earth cracked on itself. It is as big a deal, if not bigger, than this. And she was clearly behind it. There was lots of insight. So this is not our first rodeo, as we say. We've done it. They survived it.

And I think what's interesting is what they said is that we relate to them in some way through these types of things. It's like, wow, the royals, they're just like us. They have estranged family relationships and difficulty getting along. And that's why when they say – it's funny, the Brits, they have this subtle way, the subtle art of putting you in your place. And even when the palace is talking about their dignified silence, what they're really saying is –

You're undignified. You're undignified and loud. One thousand percent. They're putting them in their place. Which is what we as Americans are viewed as here anyway. So that's Megan and that becomes Megan's fault. Well, they're undignified all the way to the bank. That's all I can tell. Well, Monica, you can cash in too. Yeah. Anyway. Anyways. Well, why don't you loudly in an undignified fashion, Cara, read us through the credit. I want to thank Brooke. Thank you for coming. These are great insights that you have. We really appreciate it.

Today's show was produced by Naeem Araza, Blakeney Schick, Christian Castro-Rossell, and Rafaela Seward. Rick Kwan engineered this episode. Our theme music is by Trackademics. If you're already following the show, you are an heir. If not, you are a spare. Go wherever you listen to podcasts, search for On with Kara Swisher and hit follow. Thanks for listening to On with Kara Swisher from New York Magazine, the Vox Media Podcast Network, and us. And Brooke Hammerling with us today, too. Check out her podcast.

Pop Culture Mondays on Thursdays. I can't sing it.