Time - USA (2022-05-09)

96 TIME May 9/May 16, 2022

You write that

William and

Kate calm each

other down,

while Harry

and Meghan

feed each

other’s sense of

indignation and

victimhood?

Tina Brown The journalist on her new book about

the British royal family, Prince Andrew’s sleaze,

and what Diana would have been like as Queen

What was the biggest surprise in
writing your new book, The Palace
Papers? How incredibly difficult it
is to fit in that system. You know it’s
a gilded cage; you know that there’s
all these constrictions. But by the
end of it, I just felt like I’d been
trapped in a mothballed cupboard
with people banging on the door try-
ing to get out.

You note that “even at her most
bitter ebb with the royal family,
[Diana] was always a monarchist.”
How would she have performed
as Queen? The irony was that
at the very end of her life in the ’90s,
she and Charles became on quite
cordial terms. Today, in her 60s,
she would have been in her prime.
I believe she would have been an
absolutely superb Queen.

You note that “Love and Strategy
would be a good name for a Kate
Middleton perfume.” How big a
role did Kate’s mother have in “ar-
ranging” her union with William?
No, it was a complete love match, and
still is. I think that [Kate] fell madly
in love with William, but there’s a
difference between falling madly in
love with somebody and being able
to navigate for 10 years the obstacle
course that was like a snakes and
ladders game. I think that [Kate’s]
mother was hugely helpful in keeping
that course steady.

You call Prince Andrew “a
coroneted sleaze machine” and
paint him as arrogant, entitled,
and vindictive. Does he have any
redeeming qualities? In some
ways, I feel sorry for him. He’s
clearly a dim bulb, there’s very
little going on upstairs, and he’s
something of an oaf. Unfortunately,
being intellectually dim and
surrounded by sycophancy is a very
bad combination.

I suppose the British people are

lucky he wasn’t the firstborn son?

So lucky! Whatever misgivings you

have about Prince Charles, he’s an ex-

tremely decent man who strives to do

good in the way that he sees it. Imagine

if Andrew was about to be King! I think

it would be the death of the institution.

Your portrayal of Prince Harry has

him utterly consumed by hatred of

the press. Doesn’t that make his cur-

rent foray into media all the more

puzzling? I’m told that is most puz-

zling to the royal family themselves at

the moment. Apparently, what they

say about Harry is, “We don’t recog-

nize him.” He’s now writing a book

that invades not just his own privacy

but also that of his family, when he’s

always suffered so deeply from these

tell-all books.

After Meghan and Harry’s hugely

successful first tour to Australia in

2018, you write that Meghan be-

lieved that “the monarchy likely

needed her more than she needed

them.” Was she correct? A lot of her

instincts were right, as we saw from

the recent Commonwealth tour [by

William and Kate] that went so badly.

Meghan sensed that a lot of the stuff

she was doing in Australia felt archaic.

I think she had a lot to offer in terms

of media modernity. But her push-

back was just chaotically executed and

done with such recklessness.

You suggest that if William and

Kate’s marriage got into trouble,

“the whole Windsor house of cards

could come tumbling down.” It is in

a fragile state. [But] I think that Wil-

liam has quite a lot of resemblance to

his grandmother. He’s very prudent,

he’s thoughtful, he’s not headstrong.

That’s a lucky thing for the monar-

chy. You have to wonder, if the first

son had been Harry, would it have

survived? —CHARLIE CAMPBELL

8 QUESTIONS

MATTHEW EISMAN—GETTY IMAGES