Palace appoints external lawyers to probe MM bullying...

[Sprining]

Last week, in the lead up to Meghan and Harry’s eagerly anticipated Oprah interview, Palace sources were quoted as saying that the Palace was “prepared to retaliate with fresh disclosures about the couple’s behaviour if the monarchy is attacked”.

Great, so what next

External lawyers to probe bullying by other royals?
External lawyers to probe racism within RF?
External lawyers to probe whether there was disability discrimination in denying support for mental health?
External lawyers to problem Andrews behaviour and whether it broke public code of conduct (not criminal investigation, but did he bring us into disrepute type of stuff)?

Is this a vendetta or is RF finally going to be be subject to public accountability?

@Alsohuman there is lots about Andrew that can be investigated by the palace, see the above from aides in how he treated staff.

Plus alleged dodgy deals and peddling of influence as widely reported in the media.

This is in addition to the sex claims that the FBI is interested in

As always there's so much mis-direction on these H&M threads.

Staff have made serious allegations.

The most serious of which is that bullying was ignored - something that reflects very badly on the Palace.

The news that independent lawyers were being brought in was broken by The Times, its purpose being to see what lessons should be learned.

The fact that it is independent and its focus is on lessons learned suggests very strongly that this investigation is not into M's behaviour but how Palace HR responded to the claims

The timing is obviously not a coincidence. These claims re-surfaced when news of the Oprah interview became public - cause and effect of the people being involved deciding that if H&M wanted to make "their truth" public then they had the right to do the same.

H&M chose to do the interview when M was pregnant. It should be obvious to anyone that such an interview will invite a significant level of coverage on both mainstream and social media and that not all of it would be positive. It could also be expected that "sources"'would respond and BP would offer comment.

If this was thought to be unduly stressful perhaps wait until after the baby is born or perhaps better still, don't do the interview at all and instead enjoy your new multi million dollar home, landing $100m plus deals with Netflix and Spotify, a new baby on the way, a win against the Daily Mail and start thinking about generating some positive content to fulfil said deals rather than generate "content" for the tabloids that there's a good chance you may come to regret (based on a history of royal interviews).

How do you know they haven’t complained? We don’t get FOI on who has complained.

They have certainly complained to the media, which is apparently enough for Rf to announce a public inquiry? Or is that grounds only for meghan?

From an HR / employment law perspective it's not unusual to have an external firm investigate something which otherwise is difficult to get a clear view on. It's usually done to show neutrality as none of those involved have skin in the game in terms of outcome.

Ah, interesting that when Prince Charles valet makes horrific complaints about his alleged treatment by PC to to the media, they fire him and take an injunction out to silence him.

Why not investigate that historic claim? Far more relevant since he will be future king?

I've said it before but it's worth repeating...

Andrew's Wiki page... especially the headings..

Corruption and Kazaksthan
Arms Sales
Questionable Language
(Kazaksthan Presiden't son paid £15M, £3M more than it was worth, for Sunnhinhill which was in awful state of disrepair)
Wiki says he reportedly pocketed £4M for a water treatment deal in Kazakstan
There's emails on this but of course the Palace blocked them all.

And yet.... an enquiry into Meghan... yeah right...

the Palace have, for their part, kept him completely out of public sight

Only if you discount the queen having him riding shotgun in full view of the paps on at least two occasions since that interview and the fact he's been flying kites on the possibility of a desired return to public duties epitomised by the cupcake packing during lockdown.

@Roussette

I've said it before but it's worth repeating...

Andrew's Wiki page... especially the headings..

Corruption and Kazaksthan
Arms Sales
Questionable Language
(Kazaksthan Presiden't son paid £15M, £3M more than it was worth, for Sunnhinhill which was in awful state of disrepair)
Wiki says he reportedly pocketed £4M for a water treatment deal in Kazakstan
There's emails on this but of course the Palace blocked them all.

And yet.... an enquiry into Meghan... yeah right...

The assumption you're making is that the enquiry is into M's behaviour.

From what was reported in The Times the enquiry is focused on Palace HR into their alleged failure to address complaints of bullying appropriately.

That's a very different thing and is a false equivalence with the items listed re: Andrew, which yes do warrant investigation imho but by appropriate law enforcement and not the Palace (independently outsourced or not) and in the case of Epstein that investigation is ongoing by the FBI.

If the tabloids offer enough of a cash incentive to staff employed by the royals, I'm sure many allegations of bullying will come out of the woodwork that predate Meghan.

Yes, enough papers have been charging after Meghan's reputation - there needs to be one charging after Andrew's. Something is wrong that they are not - perhaps they are fearful of not being on good terms with the palace.

It's stinks!.

I am just putting it into context that's all.

Big cover up on favourite son.

And yes, agree, how the RF treat their staff in the context of HR is of prime importance and should be looked in to.

@StoneofDestiny

If the tabloids offer enough of a cash incentive to staff employed by the royals, I'm sure many allegations of bullying will come out of the woodwork that predate Meghan.

I'm sure you're right.

Which is why this investigation in theory is a good thing if changes the alleged prevailing bias within Palace HR of suppressing/ignoring complaints from staff relating to poor behaviour/bullying from any member of the RF.

@DeRigueurMortis

As always there's so much mis-direction on these H&M threads.

Staff have made serious allegations.

The most serious of which is that bullying was ignored - something that reflects very badly on the Palace.

The news that independent lawyers were being brought in was broken by The Times, its purpose being to see what lessons should be learned.

The fact that it is independent and its focus is on lessons learned suggests very strongly that this investigation is not into M's behaviour but how Palace HR responded to the claims

The timing is obviously not a coincidence. These claims re-surfaced when news of the Oprah interview became public - cause and effect of the people being involved deciding that if H&M wanted to make "their truth" public then they had the right to do the same.

H&M chose to do the interview when M was pregnant. It should be obvious to anyone that such an interview will invite a significant level of coverage on both mainstream and social media and that not all of it would be positive. It could also be expected that "sources"'would respond and BP would offer comment.

If this was thought to be unduly stressful perhaps wait until after the baby is born or perhaps better still, don't do the interview at all and instead enjoy your new multi million dollar home, landing $100m plus deals with Netflix and Spotify, a new baby on the way, a win against the Daily Mail and start thinking about generating some positive content to fulfil said deals rather than generate "content" for the tabloids that there's a good chance you may come to regret (based on a history of royal interviews).

Great post.

@DeRigueurMortis.

Well said

I’ve seen lots of stories over the years about how rude Andrew is. One that sticks in my mind was him damaging a gate in Windsor great park because he was too impatient to wait for it to fully open. The same article said he is called Toad of Toad Hall by staff at Windsor because of the way he drives around. He’s a pathetic arrogant man. Fergie can apparently be very rude too.

@Puzzledandpissedoff

I don’t think we need worry too much about Andrew. If Ghislaine Maxwell is offered a decent plea bargain she’ll sing like a canary

I wouldn't fancy her chances of making old bones if she does; frankly, I'm only amazed that she's still alive now

I think she'll sing like a flock of. She's only alive and bleating about relentless surveillance now because of said relentless surveillance.

Don't rate her chances when she walks early having sung her little heart out though...

The agenda was very clear from this Times article.

It even started:

“Royal aides have hit back at the Duchess of Sussex before her television interview with Oprah Winfrey by revealing that she faced a bullying complaint made by one of her closest advisers during her time at Kensington Palace.“

The language is that of a fight and it’s clearly with M herself as it doesn’t mention H.

“The sources approached The Times because they felt that only a partial version had emerged of Meghan’s two years as a working member of the royal family and they wished to tell their side.“

Sure they did. No concern about partial versions of any of the of the other royals.

@DeRigueurMortis, I’ve pointed out claims of potentially bullying (well if true, go far beyond that) by Prince Charles and Prince Andrew by their staff. These staff have presumably complained internally (and likely been ignored) and have gone to newspapers and aired their complaints.

5 am emails pale in comparison (and if this what bullying consists of now days, then arguably Kate’s housekeeper who found the job too demanding was also in a similar boat).

But the real stinkers that need full investigation are the complaints of bullying and more by Charles valet and Andrews staff.

heavy.com/entertainment/jason-knauf-now-today-2021-update/ They are saying this person may be responsible

[quote Sprining]@DeRigueurMortis, I’ve pointed out claims of potentially bullying (well if true, go far beyond that) by Prince Charles and Prince Andrew by their staff. These staff have presumably complained internally (and likely been ignored) and have gone to newspapers and aired their complaints.

5 am emails pale in comparison (and if this what bullying consists of now days, then arguably Kate’s housekeeper who found the job too demanding was also in a similar boat).

But the real stinkers that need full investigation are the complaints of bullying and more by Charles valet and Andrews staff.[/quote]

Something which I've already addressed in a post below:

"Which is why this investigation in theory is a good thing if changes the alleged prevailing bias within Palace HR of suppressing/ignoring complaints from staff relating to poor behaviour/bullying from any member of the RF."

OP you seem to be so hell bent on proving you're right that you continually misconstrue what people have posted.

Again it's the absolute PITA of these threads where all nuance is lost.

Every poster is not actually #TeamH&M or #TeamRF. It's perfectly easy to hold both positive and negative views on different aspects of the behaviour/actions of both parties without conflict.

In fact I'd go as far to say I find the uncritical devotion to either somewhat bizarre/creepy given that none of these people give a shiny shit about "us" beyond collective "approval ratings" to enhance and monitise their respective brands.

Does anyone recall the Elizabeth Burgess, the black secretary to Charles at Highgrove who left after being racially abused by other staff. She took them to tribunal but lost.

Elizabeth Burgess, 39, who had worked part-time at the prince's Highgrove estate near Tetbury for 10 years, broke down in tears as she claimed that the prince's valet, Michael Fawcett, had called her a "fucking n*gger typist".

She claimed she had told Amanda Yaxley, Highgrove's personnel officer, about the incident and had been told to make sure she had a witness. "But she did not think anything would be done about it because we all knew that the prince adored Michael and would not listen to anyone else so there was no point in making a complaint because nothing would be done about it."

She [claimed] breach of contract and constructive dismissal... alleging that Mr Fawcett and Mark Bolland had humiliated her - and that she was sexually and racially discriminated against.

”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.“

"I never felt part of the team. There were always black jokes and names going round. Because it is the Royal Family it is still very protected. It has its own rules and regulations.“

www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/dec/07/race.monarchy

But the real stinkers that need full investigation are the complaints of bullying and more by Charles valet and Andrews staff.

Afair Charles valet was throttled by him at one point, and he hid in a cupboard.

Fair enough if you think they should investigate all claims and do a full spring clean on RF employment practices.

But just on one member, especially someone who is not even part of the RF setup now is hypocritical and deeply offensive to us taxpayers. Especially given that she is mixed race and there is a stereotype of an angry black woman which this plays into (and I’m not black, I just find it offensive).

@TatianaBis

The agenda was very clear from this Times article.

It even started:

“Royal aides have hit back at the Duchess of Sussex before her television interview with Oprah Winfrey by revealing that she faced a bullying complaint made by one of her closest advisers during her time at Kensington Palace.“

The language is that of a fight and it’s clearly with M herself as it doesn’t mention H.

“The sources approached The Times because they felt that only a partial version had emerged of Meghan’s two years as a working member of the royal family and they wished to tell their side.“

Sure they did. No concern about partial versions of any of the of the other royals.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make?

I don't think anyone has suggested the motivation of the people who contacted The Times was anything other than you described?

Pretty much "if you are going to tell "your truth" on Oprah, we're going to tell "our truth" to The Times". Cause and effect, tit for tat. Pretty unedifying on both sides imho. But then I'm a traditionalist and would rather sit down and resolve a conflict face to face in private over a rather than in public via mainstream (or social) media.

Also again it's not appropriate to conflate the motivations of the people who spoke to The Times and the remit of the independent investigation.

If Palace HR is found to have ignored/suppressed staff complaints into the behaviour of RF members then that absolutely needs to be addressed and lessons learned.

I'd also suggest that those making the claim as to why alleged past poor behaviours to staff from other RF members have not been investigated to think about why they believe that supports the argument that M was treated differently?

Rather, surely (if the allegations are true) she's been treated exactly the same as other members of the family in having the "wagons circled" to protect her at the expense of Palace staff?

The point is Mm is being treated differently now. And because she did an interview.

The modus operandi of the Rf seems to be to ignore, fire or take injunctions out against staff who complain, especially to the media.

Why this change of heart in this one instance only?