Buckingham Palace: We comply with the Equality Act ‘in principle & in practice’

Official Pictures Of The Queen And The Prince of Wales

As we discussed yesterday, the Guardian has been doing a series of investigative/historical reports on “the Queen’s Consent,” an arcane political procedure in which the British monarch – in this case, Queen Elizabeth, can work behind the scenes to influence parliamentary procedures and the laws and proposals made by the government. Basically, the Queen and her courtiers can influence or refuse to give their consent to certain issues. Buckingham Palace has used the Queen’s Consent to hide Liz’s massive personal fortune and ensure that it is largely free of being taxed. Liz also used the Queen’s Consent to ensure that Buckingham Palace would be exempt from British laws prohibiting racial discrimination. Here’s more on that:

In the late 1960s, the Labour government sought to eradicate racism by expanding the racial discrimination laws, which only banned racism in public places, so that they also banned discrimination in employment or services such as housing. But the Queen and her household have been excluded from those laws, which has made it impossible for women and ethnic minorities working for Buckingham Palace to complain to the courts if they believe they have been discriminated against.

Any complaints would have been referred to the Home Secretary instead of the courts. It is understood these clauses remain in place to this day.

In 1968, then Home Secretary James Callaghan and Home Office officials appeared to believe they should not request Queen’s Consent for Parliament to debate the Race Relations Bill until her advisers were satisfied it could not be enforced against her in the courts. Written memos reveal how in February of that year, Lord Tyron, the Queen’s chief financial manager, told Home Office civil servant TG Weiler ‘it was not, in fact, the practice to appoint coloured immigrants or foreigners’ to clerical roles in the royal household, but that they were permitted to work as domestic servants.

Weiler, who summarised the discussions, said Tryon had told them the Palace was prepared to comply with the proposed law, but only if it enjoyed similar exemptions to those provided to the diplomatic service, which could reject job applicants who had been resident in the UK for less than five years.

According to Weiler, Tryon considered staff in the Queen’s household to fall into one of three types of roles: ‘(a) senior posts, which were not filled by advertising or by any overt system of appointment and which would presumably be accepted as outside the scope of the bill; (b) clerical and other office posts, to which it was not, in fact, the practice to appoint coloured immigrants or foreigners; and (c) ordinary domestic posts for which coloured applicants were freely considered, but which would in any event be covered by the proposed general exemption for domestic employment.’

Weiler wrote: ‘They were particularly concerned that if the proposed legislation applied to the Queen’s household it would for the first time make it legally possible to criticise the household.

The phrasing suggests that Mr Callaghan and officials believed it might not be possible to obtain the Queen’s Consent for Parliament to debate the racial equality law unless the monarch was assured of her exemption.

[From The Daily Mail]

“Any complaints would have been referred to the Home Secretary instead of the courts. It is understood these clauses remain in place to this day.” Meaning, I believe, that Buckingham Palace is still given a special legal categorization where if they do happen to employ a person of color (or a woman, or both) and the person is treated poorly, the person has few legal remedies and zero path to sue the palace for racial discrimination or harassment. It’s also likely that BP still operates under their own separate set of rules and are not required to comply with any and all anti-discrimination hiring practices. To this day. So, BP responded (finally) and their response was not good:

“Claims based on a second-hand account of conversations from over 50 years ago should not be used to draw or infer conclusions about modern-day events or operations,” a spokesman for the palace said. “The principles of Crown Application and Crown Consent are long established and widely known. The royal household and the Sovereign comply with the provisions of the Equality Act, in principle and in practice. This is reflected in the diversity, inclusion and dignity at work policies, procedures and practices within the royal household. Any complaints that might be raised under the act follow a formal process that provides a means of hearing and remedying any complaint.”

[From ABC News]

“The royal household and the Sovereign comply with the provisions of the Equality Act, in principle and in practice…” But… are they legally required to do so? Because that’s one of the issues – without the government mandating BP’s compliance with the Equality Act, it’s little more than a toothless gesture. Which is what the Guardian’s report said – Buckingham Palace threw their weight around to ensure that there would be no government oversight into the palace’s compliance with the law, and they used the Queen’s Consent to ensure that there would be a separate procedure in cases where people of color tried to complain about their treatment. As we’ve seen time and again, the palace does employ people of color as domestic staff and not office staff. As we’ve seen repeatedly, to this day, the Queen’s office staff (the “courtiers”) are made up of white men. So where is the legal compliance with the Equality Act?

During a visit to Sierra Leone

State Opening of Parliament

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

81 Responses to “Buckingham Palace: We comply with the Equality Act ‘in principle & in practice’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Gobo says:

    Maybe now… maybe. It’s not like we would know if they didn’t.

    • Elizabeth Regina says:

      They never did, they still don’t and they never will. I do love it when chickens come home to roost. I wonder what else is going to be unearthed?

      • Andrew’s Nemesis says:

        The Guardian has broken many stories that expose the BRF to the full and unflattering glare of public scrutiny. What is *lacking* is accountability. I would like to see constitutional scholars of a (lower case) republican bent force this issue so that the ‘oh, fifty years ago’ dismissal can hold no weight, either legally or in the racist and corrupt right wing media. Keep an eye on the Secret Barrister – they usually dissect such matters with forensic accuracy.

  2. Esma says:

    Ugh… they’re truly disgusting

    • Elizabeth Regina says:

      It kinda makes you wonder what other lawful things they are exempt from.

      • MangoAngelesque says:

        Do they have diplomatic immunity like foreign ambassadors to/from other countries?

      • Charlie says:

        BP expects other countries to treat members of the RF like diplomats with immunity.

    • Mac says:

      The idea that Parliament didn’t think they could get the “Queen’s Consent” to address racial discrimination until they exempted her from racial discrimination is fcking disgusting.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        It is – and it should be a big scandal that the royal household has directly meddled in politics time and again.

  3. Noki says:

    Nice looks like some media have decided to step on some necks.

    • Wiglet Watcher says:

      Guardian is the name behind most of the damning, well sourced articles against the monarchy. This is nothing new in terms of the BM turning on the monarchy.
      What will be news is when they out the dirt they have on William. Or the recent bad press they threw at Carole. Something is building.

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        Yep and its aimed at the Cambridges – what has gone on behind the scenes that have the media p!ssed at them.

      • Andrew’s Nemesis says:

        The not so secret pact, whereby PWT would be protected if he endlessly sacrificed his brother and sister-in-law, has been broken. Since PWT and Wiglet can no longer leak, and Carole has no more ammunition than ‘my daughter is the Keenliest KKKween in history’, and the real moneymakers have decamped these Soggy Isles, they’re all fair game. The tabloids in the UK are utterly rapacious, vindictive and immoral. There is no way that they will lose money or readers – and so they have stored up every malign doing of the Gruesome Twosome to be unleashed in a tidalwave of BRF misery. I think that within the month, the shoe is going to drop. Anyone want to bet what will occur? Shall we start a book? I’m offering 2-1 odds that PWT is going to leave Kate for the lawyer with whom he is rumoured to be having an affair, and the Middleton drug empire is going to be raided 🙂

      • Noki says:

        @ Andrews Nemesis…but the Sussexes and Harrys relationship is what about 5 years old. PWT was always protected ,they need to go back to whoever it was that he used to sacrifice for his own BS.

      • TabithaD says:

        I’d not heard that about William and a lawyer. Intriguing! But it would make sense if he has someone new on the side.
        Evidently something is brewing.

      • Mac says:

        The Guardian isn’t a tabloid. This is real investigative reporting and it’s going to be bad for the BRF because years of shady crap are starting to see the light of day. The BRF is so afraid of the tabs but it’s the real journalists they should fear.

  4. Krista says:

    The Response was a carefully worded statement that didn’t clear anything up except put the blame or criticize the investigative journalists/those questioning the Monarchy.

    Yet again the blame is put elsewhere. To Bp it’s always someone else’s fault. They never take accountability for anything and I really hope more journalist/ people shine light on this.

    • Cecilia says:

      Their response basically was: “this was put in place a long time ago and everybody knows about it so since its not a secret its no big deal”

      Like???? Do they know that that is not the issue here?

      The issue is that the royals got involved in the law to exempt themselves from said law.

      And also why would they want to be exempted from discrimination laws? Unless…..

      • Becks1 says:

        And it makes you wonder how many other employment laws the palace is exempt from.

      • LaraW” says:

        Is there an org chart somewhere of all the organizations and respective directors/heads/CEOs/whatever that fall under the umbrella of the monarchy? I’m realizing now that I don’t know the names of any of these spokespeople and that more fundamentally, I don’t know how the foundations/duchies/households/whatever the f-ck it is the “Firm” does all operate/interact with each other. I like to think transparency always starts with a good org chart.

      • Golly Gee says:

        @Becks, yes. I’m glad to see the Guardian is continuing to dig into the queen’s negotiated exemptions. There is more to come.

      • Golly Gee says:

        And the statement is very vague and general. If in fact they have POC and foreigners in office positions, they could point that out. But they don’t.

      • Gruey says:

        So long ago that the same woman who was Queen then is still in power now…

      • ArtHistorian says:

        It ought to be a HUGE scandal that the royal household has directly influenced the making of laws on several occasions. The monarch’s household is very directly meddling in politics for their own benefit, and has been on several occasions – and yet this doesn’t seem to cause public outrage. It is absolutely bonkers.

      • Brielle says:

        @Arthistorian I agree and I don’t understand why the British public isn’t more outraged ?

    • Chic says:

      You know it’s true when it takes 4 days to reply. The story appeared on Sunday and its Thursday. Didn’t they hire PR gurus?

    • TabithaD says:

      The tone of their response is pretty tetchy. They really don’t like people meddling in their affairs or asking questions about the extraordinary privileges they enjoy and why they appear to be above the law.

  5. lanne says:

    This revelation confirms something I said in an earlier post. The royals saw Meghan as Cinderella in reverse. They gave her a big wedding and made her a duchess, but she was then supposed to “pay for” the “privilege” by abasing herself completely. I think the courtiers had low-level expectations that she would be cleaning the palaces, considering they gave her and Harry servants quarters, and they have never seen a POC in the palace who wasn’t cleaning it.

    But no structural racism in England, nor sirree! And they are very much not a racist family, these people who live and die by hierarchy so much that they bow to each other in private.

    • Izzy says:

      They literally expected her to keep working as an actress to “earn her keep” as a royal. This family is low-class trash in tiaras. Period.

      • Hell Nah! says:

        Low-class trash in tiaras. Period.

        Well said, Izzy!

      • Jay says:

        Well, darling, a Black American actress? Surely she doesn’t have the skills or understanding to represent the royal family. These people just don’t understand how we do things, if you know what I mean. It would really be so unfair to her. How could Meghan possibly succeed when it took Kate years to do an event on her own? We don’t want to set her up for failure, do we? No, best she stick with her day job. That’s her rightful place, you know? Her “natural environment”. She’ll be much happier there. /S/

        The inherent racism of low expectations.

    • anotherlily says:

      They don’t bow to each other in private,or in public. That’s a fantasy. They all bow to the Queen. Theoretically, people bow to those of higher status which means that people of HRH status are equal and bow to those of ‘Majesty’ status. In practice those royals who are not HRH, including those who have no title, do not bow to their HRH relatives. Royal family private hierarchy is governed by family relationship to the monarch. Children come before grandchildren even if some grandchildren are higher in the line of succession.

      From the comments about Meghan continuing her career it sounds as if they either didn’t expect the marriage to last or they didn’t want her to have a prominent role.

      • lanne says:

        They bow to the Queen in private. They stand in succession order in private. They can’t let go of hierarchy even behind closed doors. That was my point. They never let that shit go. And they saw Meghan as a “showgirl,” not as a working actor, an entrepreneur, or a college grad. I wrote a post a few days ago that either got deleted or eaten where I said that the royals should have given Harry an ultimatum: royal family or Meghan, and openly refused his marriage request. Now we see that he would have chosen Meghan. Even so, I doubt that anything would have been different. The smear campaign would have still happened, and Meghan would have been blamed for “bewitching” Harry or some garbage like that. The royals were determined to hold on to Harry because they needed him to prop up William. Meghan was going to be the catalyst for Harry’s escape either way. A royal ultimatum would have been more honest, and probably easier to deal with than the gaslighting treatment Meghan got.

      • equality says:

        They couldn’t give Harry an ultimatum because their racism, classicism and snobbery would have been on open display. Honesty isn’t in their perceived best interest.

  6. Merricat says:

    Points to The Guardian.
    Will the monarchy survive Elizabeth? Not at this rate.

    • LaraW” says:

      No no! They announced the Jubilee! It Shall Be So! The Oracles of Elizabeth have Spoken! Don’t you know that five eagles flew prior to the announcement— just like Agamemnon, this is a sure sign of Victory! The Augurs have Foreseen!

      • Nick G says:

        Funny you say that… they’ve been having trouble with the ravens at the Tower of London over the past year….bored with lack of visitors, they’ve been flying off. The queen raven disappeared, most likely died. If the ravens leave the Tower, the legend says, the monarchy, and then Britain, will fall

  7. CidyKitty(CidySmiley) says:

    Ok my brain is trying to comprehend this.

    So even though they are saying they participate in the Equality Act, they have used this “power” to exclude themselves from it?

    • Jais says:

      Yep…because they are racist AF, they know they’re racist AF, and they DGAF. Cuz they’re above the law and can do whatever the F they want. Disgusting.

    • AnonyCat says:

      The Queen’s Consent means that the Queen has to sign off on allowing laws to be entered into parliament for debate. This is supposed to be a small ceremonial gesture but we are finding out that instead, the Queen is using that to reword laws before they can even be debated. The Equality laws (from 1968 onwards) wouldn’t even have been brought to Parliament for debate and a vote without the Queen putting in exemptions for herself. Now, though the Royals are exempt from all the racial and gender discrimination laws, the Palace is saying that they abide to the spirit of the law and they have their own process of investigation. A process that they refused to describe in detail. Now if someone told you that they were spiritually married and they were in practice like a married couple does that mean that they are still having the same legal and civil obligations and rights as a couple married in law? Nope.

      So a similar framework can help detect the BS.

  8. Me says:

    Hmmmm….they aren’t compliant. The staff isn’t diverse and I’d be very, very surprised if that establishment keeps any records at all. You’ll also notice that senior positions aren’t advertised (or competed) so that a small group of the ‘right people’ can reserve those positions for themselves. And that’s how BP etc. got here — displaying a truly extraordinary level of incompetence. These people not only don’t work, they don’t know how to work. They know how to run to the tabloid press, but that’s about it.

    • Becks1 says:

      Yes that stood out to me too, especially since it seems that’s still the practice – if they aren’t advertising for the higher up positions, and its based on who you know, or internal promotions, etc – then those positions are going to be mostly (all?) white, because that’s who is already employed there and who they “know.”

      • Cecilia says:

        It never dawned on me until you pointed it out that there has indeed never been advertisements for the position of palace official. Its simply one big old boys network

  9. LaraW” says:

    I wasn’t aware they had principles they could put into practice. I suppose racism sexism classism xenophobia can be considered principles. I know Jason was gay so I presume they are outwardly(?) lgbtqa friendly. Wonder if they’re transphobic to boot.

    Perhaps they should have let Ivanka have that photo op after all. Seems she recognized true kindred spirits: racist grifters with no political qualifications inserting themselves into national policy to enjoy the spoils of taxpayer money and carve out financial exceptions for their undisclosed off shore assets, all the while supporting an ecosystem of obsequious followers reliant on the principles of trickle-down griftonomics to sustain their lifestyles. And Russia. Just for kicks.

    Also… this really is not a good look for the UK right before they host the G7 summit.

    • Catherine says:

      Homosexuality is accepted in British culture particularly among the aristocracy as long as you’re extremely discreet. It’s treated the same as people having affairs in a way. Do whatever you please as long as you do it discreetly. So people may have known/suspected he was gay but I would be willing to bet that it was in no way openly discussed or acknowledged in any way. So the fact that they hired people who were homosexual is not a sign of their enlightenment or lack of discriminatory hiring practices. People of colour can’t “hide” or be discreet about their race. Remember how the media reacted when the Sussexes established their own household and women were in the top advisory spots. The way they reacted was ridiculous but it demonstrated that despite having a woman as a monarch women are not given advisory positions of prominence within the BRF.

      • LaraW” says:

        Question— in the context of the monarchy as a place of employment, does the acceptance of lgbtqa individuals extended towards non-aristocrats? Or is it complicated by class dynamics? (Assuming they hire non-aristocrats to take more senior administrative positions?) The more we discuss, the more I feel like we discover how much we don’t know. If they were truly a “Firm” accountable to the public, they would have to file all those quarterly reports and disclosures every other company is required to make.

        Like this whole Sandringham beer business— are they required to report that? Or is it swept into the whole Royal box of questionable financial practices? (Who is supplying their barley/wheat/whatever grain they’re using? Is it all the farmers Charles fucked over with the whole land leasing thing? Who is going to be their distributor? Where is the distillery located? So many unknowns!)

    • Cisne says:

      damn!!! you said what you said!!! in that 2nd paragraph.

  10. Space Geek says:

    Bravo to the Guardian for keeping on investigating and publishing this information. If it’s not the keeping of paying taxes secret (do they, don’t they and they choose how much) or picking and choosing which laws they want and if they’ll follow them; there’s meeting with former Prime Ministers with a view to keeping us Scots on a tight lead. I’m shocked at how little coverage this has had on news channels here in the UK.

  11. Hannah says:

    It’s honestly amazing to me how mediocre and cramped the thinking of the “royals” can be. Move with the times at least! Maybe you were racist in 1968, well, could you NOT be racist in 2021?

  12. Becks1 says:

    “Any complaints that might be raised under the act follow a formal process that provides a means of hearing and remedying any complaint.”

    So, they still aren’t allowing their employees to file a complaint in court, it’s a “formal process” that “remedies any complaint.” It sounds like the fox is guarding the henhouse. We’re just supposed to take their word for it that there isn’t discrimination going on, and somehow that just doesn’t seem sufficient.

    • Merricat says:

      THIS is exactly the issue–there is no legal recourse for the employee. The Queen’s Consent allows them to say “We aren’t bound to this law, and we have no provisions for employees who say this law has been broken, but nah, we haven’t broken it.”

      • LaraW” says:

        Haha saying that they aren’t bound by the law automatically means they can’t break it. So I suppose they’re telling the truth in that sense.

    • Me says:

      I would be shocked if there were actually any sort of ‘process’—it’s like it or lump it with that bunch. There are remedies all right: 1) leave or 2) leave in a hailstorm of negative tabloid coverage.

    • Bunny says:

      It isn’t that we’re supposed to take their word. Its is that we’re not supposed to ask because they say so.

      They’re above giving answers and we’re gauche and pushy for thinking we deserve a response.

      • LaraW” says:

        Well you know. All commoners seeking equal rights, a voice in government, and accountability are gauche and pushy until they roll out the guillotine. Then it’s an affront to god and the natural order.

    • Eurydice says:

      So many weasel words – I once had a boss whose formal process was “Get the hell out of my office.” This remedied every complaint to his satisfaction.

  13. Lottie says:

    This article about the racist treatment of a woman who worked for Prince Charles is from 2001, but gives a strong and sickening sense of what it might get have been like to work there: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/dec/07/race.monarchy

    “They wanted a white face at Highgrove and I was not that face,” she claimed. “In the Prince of Wales’s household there is still very much the old school and they have not really taken to black people.”

    • Golly Gee says:

      Thanks for the link to an interesting article. So it does sound like they’ve hired black people for office positions including Colleen Harris, the prince’s former press secretary at the time, but that it is a very unpleasant place to work because of racism from other co-workers. I wonder if the employment tribunal is part of the court system or what? The outcome of the tribunal in this case is a mystery also.
      It is interesting that Michael Fawcett flushed after his racist remark when he heard Charles calling him. It makes it seem like the staff racism was kept out of the awareness of at least Charles in this case. But even if Charles disapproved, it doesn’t sound like he would’ve gotten rid of Fawcett regardless.

  14. Sofia says:

    Sure these days they don’t outright ban non white people working for them but do we see non white (and non aristo) people in senior positions like private sec, press sec, communications sec etc etc? The only one I can think of is Natalie Campbell who was a director for the royal foundation up until March last year. I think the Sussexes even asked her to head up the Sussex Royal foundation when they were still working royals.

    But everyone else is still white and mostly aristocratic.

  15. Lemons says:

    Show us the d-mn staff photos. We want to see everyone, divided by seniority. Stop hiding behind press releases and muddled words. If you comply in principle and practice, trot out your “diversity” employees, team leaders, executive members.

    What’s that? They don’t exist? Okay then. As Kaiser said yesterday, where is the Diversity Tsar?

  16. Alexandria says:

    Welp. Full of crap.

  17. ABritGuest says:

    Somehow doubt they comply with the Equalities Act in principle. The Queen’s first POC appointment to her staff seems to be her former equerry in 2017. This is also the guy who palace sources said pre Oprah was a suggested mentor for Meghan because he apparently knows a lot about being a Duchess & having joined the year after she got engaged had lots of palace experience 🤪.

    Charles had a black press secretary in the 90s but how many other POC have they ever had and employed in significant roles?

    I also doubt their internal process given how unprofessional palace staff have proven to be including HR leaking to a times reporter about Meghan’s mental health. HR of all people should have respected confidentiality. And did Angela Kelly face any sanction for fighting with an employee on palace grounds? Somehow I doubt it.

    Royal reporters have openly said palace staff were prejudiced against Meghan (they blamed it on her being an American actress) & that the old guard looked down on her so can’t imagine it’s type of place that would enforce anti discrimination very fairly. I also read that Philip’s staff would refer to female staffers as ‘girls’. Can you imagine how the firm would handle a grievance by a POC? You know it would be a mess.

    • LaraW” says:

      Now I’m wondering why Charles even hired a Black press secretary, if the practice was so out of the norm? Was it a stunt in his apparently neverending campaign to rehabilitate his image, like walking Meghan down the aisle?

      Also it occurs to me that of Kate is forever “growing in her role,” Charles is forever “rehabilitating his image.” They’re all stuck in some pocket dimension where time apparently moves at 1/32nd the speed of the real world.

      • ABritGuest says:

        Probably. Maybe it was after the tribunal case who Fawcett allegedly called the N word. I’d love to hear of her experience- after she left she talked about being exhausted.

        No shade to him as sure he was great at his job & deserved the role but the Queen’s appointment of her Ghanaian equerry (those roles are 3 year fixed term) if I’m being cynical could have been calculated PR as it was after Harry & Meghan got engaged & a lot of the international press was talking about the royals’ history on race & whether their union signalled the firm modernising.

  18. My3cents says:

    Please don’t y’all remember that they’re very much not a racist family?

  19. Noor says:

    Nobody should be above the law. The race and sex discrimination laws are not the only law they are exempted from.

    The Queen and Prince Charles are not legally liable to pay income tax. capital gain tax or inheritance tax.

    It is not until 1993 that they voluntarily pay income tax .

  20. Amy Bee says:

    It can’t be easy for a person of colour to work at BP.

  21. Mich says:

    Yeah. Right. Sure they comply.

    These are the same people who thought the Black horse guy was the right person to teach Meghan how to navigate royal life as a Duchess.

  22. Seraphina says:

    In Principle and In Practice should be changed to In Pride and In Prejudice.

  23. aquarius64 says:

    US reporters are starting the Sussex’s about this and they are saying no comment. Meghan is getting ready for her book promotion and the Sussexes and Archie are waiting for Princess Monticeito to be born. Living well is the best revenge.

  24. Maria says:

    I’m surprised they responded to this.
    Of course the Daily Mail commenters (bots and trolls alike) are saying the Guardian is bullying the poor 95 year old widow. 😂😂😂

    • Eurydice says:

      Sure, she’s a 95-year old widow now – but how about all the 70 years before that?

  25. Cg2495 says:

    F these people. Racist a-**holes. I’m glad our Meghan is not there anymore. Can’t imagine the pain she was in dealing with those inbreed bastards.

  26. Che says:

    As I type this, the courtiers are currently doing ancestry.com to prove that they do, in fact, have minorities on their staff.

  27. Jay says:

    “What you fail to realize is that actually, we own *cough* employ! lots of coloureds *cough* Black people, too many to bring to mind or name them all here, and so it wouldn’t make any difference if we actually followed the same employment laws, so everyone please let’s talk about something else, and, er…did you even know our best friend is Black?” – the BP defense

  28. Shannon says:

    The Queen will survive this, but her reign will be ending soon. Ppl already don’t want Charles to be King. But he will be. The difference with him is he won’t get the “from another generation” excuse. Plus, every time the public see Camilla they will be thinking of Lady Di. The RF will have to work OT to get the kind of favorable rating QEII had, and they won’t be able to do it. They need Harry and Meghan.

    • lanne says:

      I agree that the royals need the Sussexes to survive long term, but they are too stupid and hidebound to realize it. The crisis team needs to be crafting a public apology to the Sussexes, start publicizing and talking up the Sussex projects, and behind the scenes start negotiations to bring them back—give them the guarantees they want, their own choice of staff, no answering to William, their own office. Harry and Meghan might tell them to kick rocks, but they might be willing to return on a part time basis in time.

      I just don’t see how the royals can compete. The Sussexes will out perform them, draw attention away from them, and be an eternal source of competition. No fake Early Years pie charts, or amateur YouTube videos can compete with the likes of what Harry and Meghan can do for Netflix. When Harry and Meghan start appearing at events, it will be clear that celebrities around the world will be Team Sussex. The more the Royal family is linked to right wing racist causes, the worse they look on the world stage. Harry and Meghan are already showing up the royals in the commonwealth. I think William and Kate are too thin skinned to even set foot in a nonwhite country. Their foreign trips will be even more tightly stage managed than they are now, if they happen at all.

      They need the Sussexes star power to survive. It’s not enough to give the public pretty images without substance. People need to see empathy and connection and authenticity. But the royals and the middletons will probably continue flailing and sending Uncle Hookers and Blow and the ratchets to talk up kates pie charts and buttons. I’m not sure what there is to talk up for William. What does he do all day besides huff and puff and grind his teeth? And gardening?

  29. Athena says:

    It now makes perfect sense why they refused to pay for Meghan’s expenses and how when she went to HR she was told that she was not an employee. The Firm does not hire people of color outside of maintenance therefore Meghan was not really part of the Firm.

    They were willing to use her white father against her at the same time denying that she was half white. What a shock our supper smart, opinionated, hard working, worldly, caring Meghan must have been to KP and BP staff.

  30. The Recluse says:

    And if you watch any of those documentaries about the royal households and so forth good luck spotting a minority. Their response is pathetic. The monarchy needs to go away as soon as QE2 leaves.