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?

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

Bingo!!!

Yes she (and Harry) did a global "dish the dirt" interview.

As a direct result, some people unsurprisingly got upset and went to The Times.

Furthermore they supplied damning evidence in the form of the JK email that strongly suggested staff complaints had been ignored.

This wasn't just a tabloid expose of "Charles/Andrew"'was a shit to me and take my word for it.

Yet again the big story here isn't M's alleged behaviour but Palace HR's alleged lack of response and the evidence now in the public domain.

This wasn't something the Palace could brush under the carpet. It had to be investigated.

This is exactly why such interviews are a recipe for disaster or at best a big risk.

Sure you can control what "truth" you tell, what "spin" you put on it, the "context" you choose to provide and what you choose to omit (that's not a criticism of H&M - it's simply a fact of how people trained in dealing with the press address interviews) but you cannot control other people's responses.

If you lob the bomb you can't complain when you get hit with your own shrapnel.

Well, if anybody is well placed to throw more dirt into the situation, it's Harry!

He must have the inside track on all the rumours of Williams alleged affair, Charles dodgy valet, his fathers affair, his mother's treatment etc etc etc

The Soap Opera can run and run.

@DeRigueurMortis, are you saying Charles valet’s complaints to the media of his treatment are not worthy of a transparent HR investigation?

Why did Charles take an injunction out to prevent his valet from speaking instead of, you know, having an independent HR investigation?

Presumably the valet complained internally (although we can’t FOI that) before going to the media and revealing how he was treated by Charles.

Why didn’t the palace investigate ?

There seems to be this acceptance that if someone speaks up and highlight issues within the RF, they will be attacked by the institution.

How is that ok behaviour for a taxpayer funded institution?

I found this brief interview of what is the firm is interesting, (even the guy says he didn’t know much about the royal life at the end of the video)

@DeRigueurMortis has explained this really well. It sounds to me (as someone with professional experience in this area - employment law, not the RF!) that the staff who say they were bullied by MM made complaints at the time. The RF/ their HR people hushed up the complaints to protect H&M (in the same way as they have protected other members of the family like Andrew against bullying complaints by staff in the past), paid off the employees and got them to sign NDAs in return. Life went on.

H and M then left and did their interview. When these former staff heard that the interview was going to happen, they went to the papers (presumably emboldened by the #metoo campaign which has weakened the power of NDAs and assuming the RF would not dare to sue them for breaching it in the circumstances) to give their side of the story (or tell “their truth”), perhaps concerned that they might be criticised in the interview for not helping/supporting MM.

The RF investigation is not considering whether MM was a bully but looking into how the original allegations were handled by HR/the palace and what should have been done differently (I would say a lot!). It is not an investigation into MM or her behaviour but into the RF as an employer. It is best practice to appoint an external law firm or barrister to carry out these investigations to ensure independence. As others have said, an internal investigation finding that everything was tickety boo will be dismissed as totally biased and unreliable.

In my view, we need a broader inquiry into
A) historic employee grievances and how these were handled by the palace. Against Charles, Andrew, Kate, Meghan and any one else
B) allegations of discrimination on protected characteristics - this is against equalities legislation so legal implications
C) allegations of misuse of public position and influence
D) and review whether the Rf should continue to be exempt from FOI

Irrespective of what the palace does or not, I think we need an independent public enquiry into how our highest public institution is run and whether it is meeting its obligations

"@DeRigueurMortis has explained this really well. It sounds to me (as someone with professional experience in this area - employment law, not the RF!) that the staff who say they were bullied by MM made complaints at the time. The RF/ their HR people hushed up the complaints to protect H&M (in the same way as they have protected other members of the family like Andrew against bullying complaints by staff in the past), paid off the employees and got them to sign NDAs in return. Life went on.

H and M then left and did their interview. When these former staff heard that the interview was going to happen, they went to the papers (presumably emboldened by the #metoo campaign which has weakened the power of NDAs and assuming the RF would not dare to sue them for breaching it in the circumstances) to give their side of the story (or tell “their truth”), perhaps concerned that they might be criticised in the interview for not helping/supporting MM.

The RF investigation is not considering whether MM was a bully but looking into how the original allegations were handled by HR/the palace and what should have been done differently (I would say a lot!). It is not an investigation into MM or her behaviour but into the RF as an employer. It is best practice to appoint an external law firm or barrister to carry out these investigations to ensure independence. As others have said, an internal investigation finding that everything was tickety boo will be dismissed as totally biased and unreliable."

yes to all of that.

In an enquiry of this type, there needs to be tight remit which can be based on fact and procedure, not heresay and emotions.
There were complaints which weren't followed up and since the palace says they have a Dignity at Work policy, they presumably have standards against which the actions of HR can be measured. A measured conclusion can then be achieved and in a "relatively" short time.
As someone who has been through an employment tribunal as an employee bringing a case, it is far more about procedure and policies in place than emotions.

AFAIK this isn’t about MM allegations more about how they were dealt with by the palace as an employer. Hugely damaging to the palace, rather than MM, imo if found not to have dealt with it properly.

@DeRigueurMortis
You've hit the nail on the head with every post you've made but some are too stubborn to accept a different pov. IRTWT and have been sickened by some of the vitriol in the comments. Well done for shining a light.

They are about how was handled not actually against anyone as such but don't let facts get in the way

[quote Billandben444]@DeRigueurMortis
You've hit the nail on the head with every post you've made but some are too stubborn to accept a different pov. IRTWT and have been sickened by some of the vitriol in the comments. Well done for shining a light.[/quote]
👏👏👏👏👏

If they want to investigate their Internal ways of working and how they manage internal grievances, then surely they will look at all/large number of grievances against many royal family members over a period of time to get a big picture and see patterns?

That is if they actually want to learn something rather than smear one individual with unnamed royal source leaks.

If they want to investigate their Internal ways of working and how they manage internal grievances, then surely they will look at all/large number of grievances against many royal family members over a period of time to get a big picture and see patterns?

One would like to think so! (please not the use of the word 'one' in a very regal way )

But sadly I think this will be a huge cover up job and it will literally just fade away because historically they know there is far more to how staff are treated within the RF than just Meghan.

please 'note' ...

@Sprining the royal family will be free from foi act surely due to security as well
Your making out like they are going after Harry and Meghan and that isn't the case

@Sprining your reading the papers too much and mainly headlines as opposed to whole story

*There seems to be this acceptance that if someone speaks up and highlight issues within the RF, they will be attacked by the institution.

How is that ok behaviour for a taxpayer funded institution?*

Except thats not true and the investigation is into how the palace handled it so someone has spoken up , former employees and its being investigated , its not an investigation into just one person

Agree @Roussette 😃

It seems that former employees going to the media about complaints of how they were treated compels the Rf to investigate its practices.

Except in Charles case it lead to his valet being fired and an injunction.

And in Andrews case ex employees complaining to media about alleged bullying by him were met with Royal silence.

But now they must act! And only on a very narrow set of allegations against Meghan.

No doubt over the coming months there will be many royal leaks thrashing Meghan’s character from ‘unnamed’ Royal sources speaking in tandem with allegedly ex employees as this proceeds.

At least these two were direct and spoke for themselves. Instead of cowardly fighting with shadowy sources and rumours

I'm not surprised that any bullying claims were covered up. It happens all the time. My dh worked with someone who was suspended twice for bullying, but they came always came back and are now retired on a nice big pension! Sometimes there isn't much in the way of justice with these types of allegations, sadly.
In this particular case, if aides want to take it further then it needs to be looked into. The people who had other grievances historically should also speak out too.
I bet it'll turn into a tit for tat situation with the press who now have an axe to grind over Harry and Meghan anyway :(
All very sad.

@NuclearDH

I’m not sure she’s entitled to the emails. She’s entitled to be told a summary of the content including specific allegations against her but maybe not the actual emails?

If I accused someone more senior than me at work of bullying me I would be pissed off with HR/my manager if they turned all my emails over to the person I’d accused. 🤷‍♀️ Yes, I’d expect them to be told the allegations so they could defend themselves but I think the actual written details in my own words isn’t on.

Maybe I’m being naive.

The person making the accusation would be entitled to any emails that were about them under GDPR.

Far better to let them have the emails than to wait until they put in a SAR. That sort of thing wouldn't look good in a tribunal.

I agree with @DeRigeurMortis.

As someone who has experienced gaslighting and ongoing trauma as a result of historic at work bullying OP, I am surprised you are so against an independent investigation into bullying, however belated. Regarding how unfairly treated past employees allegedly were, it is wrong that their claims were not taken seriously at the time. But you seem to take for granted that Kate, William, Andrew and Charles treated their staff badly but that Meghan and Harry didn't. What about the Queen Mother and how she treated Crawfie? But all organisations have episodes of bullying (look at Westminster) and it is wrong that they are ever ignored. Changing HR policies and procedures to protect staff by way of an independent investigation need not be a blame game or smear campaign if it is about 'lessons learnt'. I don't see what choice BP had after The Times reported this in the follow up to (and prompted by) a high profile interview about the issue of being 'silenced'. Allowing past employees the chance to speak as part of an investigation has also paused the media story rather than letting it carry on in the press, which is surely to H&Ms advantage.

I am all for a fair independent inquiry into all bullying claims.

I said this before, in case you missed it

In my view, we need a broader inquiry into
A) historic employee grievances and how these were handled by the palace. Against Charles, Andrew, Kate, Meghan and any one else
B) allegations of discrimination on protected characteristics - this is against equalities legislation so legal implications
C) allegations of misuse of public position and influence
D) and review whether the Rf should continue to be exempt from FOI

Irrespective of what the palace does or not, I think we need an independent public enquiry into how our highest public institution is run and whether it is meeting its obligations