When We Talks

bitchy | Prince William wants credit for knowing Christopher Geidt’s 2017 firing was a mistake?


In the summer of 2017, Queen Elizabeth II’s private secretary Sir Christopher Geidt was ousted after (what we now know was) an internal power struggle between then-Prince Charles’s Clarence House office and Prince Andrew’s office. Well, let me put it this way – both Charles and Andrew were on the same side that Geidt needed to go, they just had different reasons for wanting him gone. Geidt was good at his job and he ran a tight ship. Looking back on it now and recognizing how significant 2017 was in recent royal history, I definitely think it was a mistake for Charles to have Geidt ousted and replaced with “Charles loyalist” Edward Young. The reason given at the time was that Charles was already trying to streamline his staff and his mother’s staff to ease into the eventual transition to his kingship.

Later, we learned about the dramatic goings-on and how much Charles despised Geidt, and we also learned that both Buckingham Palace and Clarence House were quite concerned by the obvious clownshow at Kensington Palace, even back then, just months before Prince Harry and Meghan would become engaged. I want to make this clear: even back in 2017, it was widely known and discussed that William and Kate were incredibly lazy and they were surrounding themselves with lazy and incompetent staff. Now, Charles has gotten the bulk of the blame for Geidt’s ousting, and now… Prince William wants credit for thinking that it was a mistake? Very curious move by William.

Prince William gave one of the Queen’s most senior officials ‘a piece of his mind’ after a Palace coup led to the ousting of the one courtier insiders believe could have prevented ‘Megxit’. The man at the centre of the row was Sir Christopher Geidt, a former military intelligence officer, who loyally served the Queen for 15 years as her private secretary. He was sensationally forced to quit in 2017 after falling out with both King Charles and Prince Andrew.

A new book claims the ‘unkind’ way in which Sir Christopher, now Lord Geidt, was treated incensed William so much that he spoke to the head of the monarch’s household – the then Lord Chamberlain, Earl Peel – and made his feelings plain. Lord Geidt’s fall from grace left such a hole in the Palace machinery – particularly in dealings between the Queen’s office and other family members – that it paved the way for Harry and Meghan’s acrimonious departure from the Royal Family, multiple sources have told the Mail.

The crisis is revisited in the fascinating new book Courtiers by journalist Valentine Low, detailing the inside story of the people who work for the Royal Family and the power they wield.

In 2017, Lord Geidt’s enemies finally moved against him. Surprisingly, given the late Queen’s reliance on her private secretary, she acquiesced. At the time, a number of sources suggested the then 91-year-old sovereign simply wanted ‘a quiet life’ and to avoid a dispute with her sons.

But William, with whom Lord Geidt had always enjoyed a good relationship, was furious and went to see the Lord Chamberlain to ‘give him a piece of his mind’.

The book quotes a source saying: ‘William was furious. He spoke to his grandmother and father. He felt Christopher had worked to modernise the institution and bring it closer together. He was concerned about the way it had been handled, and how Christopher had been treated. He was really angry about it, not necessarily because it was the wrong decision. He just thought it was handled very unkindly for a man who was a pillar of the institution of the monarchy, but had also played an incredibly important role when the coalition government had been formed. It just seemed like the wrong thing to do to unceremoniously chuck somebody out for a reason that had nothing to do with what was the core part of Christopher’s job, which he was still doing really, really well. [Prince William] told Willy [Lord] Peel how he felt about it, and particularly how he felt about the way in which it had been conducted, which he thought was very unkind.’

A source told the Daily Mail yesterday: ‘Christopher’s effective sacking came as a great shock and many hold the view that had he still been around, the Megxit debacle would not have happened. He had his finger on the pulse and people believe he would have found a way to pre-empt the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s departure, or at least found a way to make things work more amicably.’

[From The Daily Mail]

So this is a story of Incandescent-with-Rage William going berserk on the Lord Chamberlain because he thought Geidt had been treated unkindly, and only forward-thinking, keen Pegasus could see into the future in 2017 and understand that the monarchy needed more men of action like Geidt. It’s strange because Geidt’s replacement – and Charles crony – Edward Young quickly became an enemy of Harry and Meghan. Young was basically acting in William and Charles’s “interests” by lying to and about the Sussexes constantly. Young is exactly the kind of cozy, short-sighted political operative drawn to both Charles and William. If Geidt had stayed, things probably would have been a lot different… for William. William positioning himself this way is his idiotic way of blaming his father for the Sussexit, like it wasn’t William’s own actions and behavior driving Harry and Meghan to leave. “Why did you fire Geidt, he was the only one who could have stopped me from smearing my brother and his wife!”

True story: in the spring of 2019, QEII apparently “rehired” Geidt to “keep an eye on Harry and Meghan” by giving him a position at the Queen’s Commonwealth Trust. There are photos of Geidt and Meghan at the International Women’s Day event she attended while pregnant in 2019. He seemed to like her a lot.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.


Source link

Related posts

bitchy | ‘Gossip with Celebitchy’ podcast #138: The Sussexes should produce romcoms

Lawrence Moore

bitchy | Queen Camilla did her first solo event of the year, didn’t mention ‘Spare’

Lawrence Moore

bitchy | Amandla Stenberg DM’d a NYT critic about her review, then all hell broke loose

Lawrence Moore