The Royal Household, Courtiers, Advisers and Attendants 1: Ending Sep 2022

[Denville]

I think that what was said was that BP doesn't have rules against discriminatroy practices....that's not the same thing as saying that they still disriminate.

 

[Osipi]

I think that what was said was that BP doesn't have rules against discriminatroy practices....that's not the same thing as saying that they still disriminate.

"It also claims that the royal household is still exempt from rules regarding discrimination based on gender or race."

Exempt is the key word here. It's alluding that BP is *above* or *excused* from following rules regarding discrimination.

 

[ACO]

Is it still exempt? And if so.... why?

 

[Osipi]

Is it still exempt? And if so.... why?

I went back and read the Guardian article and if my eyes are serving me right, the article states "A Buckingham Palace spokesperson said: “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.

Reading the article did raise a question for me and hopefully someone will know more than I do as my knowledge is limited and I'm stating what I think by what I've seen over the years. First the statement from the article.

"The following year, (1991) the royal researcher Philip Hall published a book, Royal Fortune, in which he cited a source close to the Queen confirming that there were no non-white courtiers in the palace’s most senior ranks."

From where I sit here, across the pond, and going by what I've read over the years, isn't it somewhat expected that courtiers in the most senior ranks are actually chosen by the Queen from the peerage? For example, the Queen's Private Secretary (termed as a "courtier") is Sir Edward Young KCVO PC.

If this is the case, (even Angela Kelly is a LVO), senior "courtiers" that work in Buckingham Palace are chosen personally by HM, The Queen and not "hired in" by HR that services the paid employess (Meghan's term) hires to work within the palace.

Perhaps the Queen is sticking to age the age old definition of "courtier" which is defined as "A courtier (/ˈkɔːrtiər/) is a person who is often in attendance at the court of a monarch or other royal personage. ... Historically the court was the centre of government as well as the residence of the monarch, and the social and political life were often completely mixed together.

It sounds to me that being a senior courtier to HM, The Queen and other members of the BRF is on a totally different level, perhaps, than household staff that is hired to work in BP from the general public.

Just thoughts here.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Is it still exempt?

Per the article, which appears to be well researched, yes:

In the 1970s, the government brought in three laws to counter racial and sexual discrimination in the workplace. Complainants in general were empowered to take their cases directly to the courts.

But staff in the royal household were specifically prevented from doing so, although the wording of the ban was sufficiently vague that the public might not have realised the monarch’s staff had been exempted.

[...]

The exemption was extended to the present day when in 2010 the Equality Act replaced the 1976 Race Relations Act, the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act and the 1970 Equal Pay Act.​

But I am uncertain which section of the Equality Act 2010 is being interpreted as extending the royal household's exemption from racial and sexual discrimination lawsuits, since there is no explicit mention of the Royal Household in the Equality Act. Perhaps the authors are referring to Schedule 22, Section 5 - however, though it mentions "descent", it does not mention sex.

Please correct me if I am wrong. I have no idea whether "Crown employment" designates employment by the government, the royal household, or some other institution.

Crown employment, etc.

5 (1) A person does not contravene this Act—

(a) by making or continuing in force rules mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) ;

(b) by publishing, displaying or implementing such rules;

(c) by publishing the gist of such rules.​

(2) The rules are rules restricting to persons of particular birth, nationality, descent or residence—

(a) employment in the service of the Crown;

(b) employment by a prescribed public body;

(c) holding a public office (within the meaning of section 50) .​

[...]​

Section 50 of the Equality Act defines public offices as offices to which appointment is made by members of government or legislatures.

 

[Durham]

I don’t really understand why there are any exemptions from the Equalities Act. That said this exemption has always been known about. It’s never been a secret.

The Guardian of course never misses an opportunity to bash the monarchy but this article is particularly objectionable in its tone with its nasty insinuations about the present. Republicans really shouldn’t embarrass themselves with these sort of smear tactics.

The monarchy is now obviously part of the culture wars. Criticism of the monarchy has up to now usually been linked to money, the class system or ideas about having a "modern" democracy. Now some republicans are clearly intent on undermining people’s confidence & respect for the institution with smears, half-truths & innuendos. And we know that there is at least one useful idiot who gives them ammunition.

 

[tommy100]

Sovereigns, and indeed many governments, are exempt from laws for various reasons. For example the US Congress is exempt from some Health and Safety Laws it creates. It doesn't mean the Queen or the US congress or the many other royals and institutions who are exempt from laws want to break those laws or don't agree with them.

In the context of the Guardian "revelations" - they are trying to spin a story about an old, small c conservative institution not being at the front of the pack in who it employs at a time when there were 1000s of other businesses, government departments and institutions that were doing the same. How many 'coloured immigrants or foreigners' were working in other government departments up to the 1960s? It speaks more of the whole country and government departments at the time rather than the Royal Household in particular IMO - there just seems to be evidence of the Royal Household doing it and of course the republican supporting Guardian will be delighted by that fact (wonder if they will spend as much time looking for similar evidence in other departments and businesses?) Interesting that the Household was notorious for employing gay men in domestic roles and the article states that the Household would employ 'coloured immigrants or foreigners' as domestic staff too. So if they were discriminating it seems they were being consistent about it at least.

Times have changed massively since then and the Royal Household now appears to me to be rather emphatically not racist or discriminatory. The past is always worth looking at, but should we judge those now on it? IMO, no.

 

[AC21091968]

I think timing of the Guardian article speaks volume, which was released not long after the Royal Family announcement on the Platinum Jubilee. It's almost identical to Graham Smith's (CEO of Republic UK) recent tweet on bashing royal family and speculating the Queen's "end of her reign". Similarly, the Guardian also released a scathing article on The Queen's "allege blocking" of bills not long after the anniversary of her succession to the throne (6th February).

I agree with tommy100 that one should not judge with today's standard on the events that happened before the 1960s, especially when society has changed drastically since then. One could learn the mistakes/atrocities from the past and not repeat them in the future, but what the Guardian and republicans continues to do is rehashing past events with smears and rumours whilst pushing their agenda.

 

[Durham]

In the context of the Guardian "revelations" - they are trying to spin a story about an old, small c conservative institution not being at the front of the pack in who it employs at a time when there were 1000s of other businesses, government departments and institutions that were doing the same. How many 'coloured immigrants or foreigners' were working in other government departments up to the 1960s? It speaks more of the whole country and government departments at the time rather than the Royal Household in particular IMO - there just seems to be evidence of the Royal Household doing it and of course the republican supporting Guardian will be delighted by that fact (wonder if they will spend as much time looking for similar evidence in other departments and businesses?)

Times have changed massively since then and the Royal Household now appears to me to be rather emphatically not racist or discriminatory. The past is always worth looking at, but should we judge those now on it? IMO, no.

Yes I agree. Unfortunately defaming the monarchy is an easy win. And its a soft target. Less trouble than actually having to explain why in their opinion a republic would be better for Britain. Far easier to just rile people up.

 

[camelot23ca]

Yes I agree. Unfortunately defaming the monarchy is an easy win. And its a soft target. Less trouble than actually having to explain why in their opinion a republic would be better for Britain. Far easier to just rile people up.

Is there any evidence that this is gaining any traction, though? The Guardian will never miss a chance to report something negative about the monarchy, but the article doesn’t seem to have caused much of a stir. Like all British institutions, the people running the monarchy behind the scenes used to be overwhelmingly male, white and at least somewhat xenophobic. This isn’t something that’s going to shock or scandalize the majority of people.

The sympathy for the RF in the wake of Harry and Meghan’s attacks and Philip’s death, the skilful adaptation during the pandemic, William and Catherine coming into their own, the Jubilee coming up.. it’s not an easy time to be a republican in Britain.

 

[Durham]

A good question.

The issue with twisted articles like this one is that it plays into a narrative that some sections of the population all too readily believe. It's a form of insidious propaganda.

And articles like these do alienate some people. A minority certainly but it's really not good if an impression is created that the monarchy is the same as it was fifty years ago. Perceptions do matter for the long term success & well being of the monarchy.

 

[AC21091968]

Tom Bower, author of Rebel Prince: The Power, Passion and Defiance of Prince Charles, Boris Johnson: The Gambler, Sweet Revenge: The Intimate Life of Simon Cowell and biographer of other public figures has written an article in the Sunday Times criticising The Queen's private secretary, Sir Edward Young for mishandling controversies and scandals. From reading some reviews of his written biographies, Bower could be brutal/ruthless and paint his subject in a negative light, whilst being very confident that it was backed by sources. Bower is due to release his biography of The Duchess of Sussex, which I predict will be scathing judging by his public comments of her. The article itself was not critical of The Queen, but rather The Prince of Wales, the Sussexes, Duke of York and palace staff.

Without Prince Philip the royal house of cards is falling
Court cases, cash for honours, sibling rivalry: the Windsor firm is adrift
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1639296341
Archive link: https://archive.vn/xP18P

 

[Somebody]

An article in Dutch about the (Dutch) clockmaker of Windsor Castle who has a long working day today to reset over 400 clocks in Windsor Castle. However, the clockmaker of Buckingham Palace is even busier, as he has to reset about 600 clocks...

 

[Osipi]

An article in Dutch about the (Dutch) clockmaker of Windsor Castle who has a long working day today to reset over 400 clocks in Windsor Castle. However, the clockmaker of Buckingham Palace is even busier, as he has to reset about 600 clocks...

That's a whole lot of clocks to attend to. The guys I really feel for are the guys that have to work overtime to reset Stonehenge.

 

[Sionevar]

I hope this is the right thread to ask this question in. Moderators - feel free to move it to the correct place if it isn't

Am I correct in thinking that employees of the various royal households of the BRF now all have non-disclosure or confidentiality clauses in their employment contracts?

I'm curious to know - how do such clauses work? Do they flatly forbid the employee from repeating anything they see or hear? Would someone therefore get into trouble for telling their wife or husband what they saw the Queen have for breakfast that day? Or are these clauses aimed more at preventing people from selling information for commercial gain e.g. to a tabloid, or writing a memoir?

What if a current employee was found to have violated the NDA, say, by selling private information about Prince William to a tabloid? I assume they would immediately have their employment terminated, and that a civil lawsuit might even be filed, depending on the nature and scope of their offense. Would any criminal charges be laid? Is information about the inner workings of the BRF considered politically sensitive? Do any employees have to sign the Official Secrets Act as well? Or something similar?

If anyone has insight or knowledge to share on this topic, I'd love to hear it.

 

[Marengo]

It's time to close this thread. You can find the new one here.