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?

@TatianaBis

and protection against bullying

Seriously?

First a former royal aid told the Telegraph:

"Bullying is endemic across all the households... They cut you out, undermine you, talk down to you. One minute you're in – the next you're persona non grata. Some staff have special protection. I've never witnessed behaviour like it before. I wish I'd never seen behind the curtain."

Second, Buckingham palace staff is nothing like the civil service, which wages considerable power and independence.The civil service serves the country, it works with successive governments, it does not serve one family.

Third, explain the bullying allegations against Andrew. And Charles’s valet’s claim that he would get explosively angry to the point that he once ripped a sink off the wall in anger, and once grabbed him by the throat so that he had to hide in a cupboard. He said: “We’ve all kept his secrets, and the strain made me very ill.”

and is why we are back to why external consultants have been appointed to review why complaints to HR were not followed up in the scenario of alleged bullying

So is Charles going to remove the injunction against his former valet so he can participate in the investigation?

well, it is an external investigation and current and former staff are encouraged to step forward.

Welll since Charles took an injunction out to prevent his valet from speaking, he can’t participate?

Are they legally exempting former and current employees from injunctions and NDAs so they can participate in investigations?

No that is not why are back to external consultants, if so they would and ‘should’ have been brought in over Charles’ and Andrew’s behaviour.

The so-called leaks to the press would not have happened without the agreement of some fairly senior at the palace. A junior member of staff would not have been able to pull the strands together. As Knauf is still in the job, he has the support of someone fairly central.

@TatianaBis

No that is not why are back to external consultants, if so they would and ‘should’ have been brought in over Charles’ and Andrew’s behaviour.

The so-called leaks to the press would not have happened without the agreement of some fairly senior at the palace. A junior member of staff would not have been able to pull the strands together. As Knauf is still in the job, he has the support of someone fairly central.

Yes

Though if they are going to investigate Philip, Charles, Andrew and the rest of them, that would be helpful. Will there be a published report for the taxpayer to see?

And we already have an ethics committee for civil servants -if you think they are civil servants, why can’t it be investigated by them?

If he hadn’t died, the man who alleged he was raped by a senior member of Charles’ staff which was covered up, along with another man was reportedly raped in 2002 might have something to say to a general investigation.

At that time a culture of bullying was also reported at the palace.

Will there be a published report for the taxpayer to see?

Will there hell as like! No. Somehow or other there will be a cover up, even with an independent investigation.

This is an interesting article going back to 2002.

'Lurid details of life in households have ruined attempts by royal family to recapture its former glory'
www.theguardian.com/media/2002/nov/09/pressandpublishing.themonarchy

It was bad then. It's bad now. Too many courtiers, too many staff, rival households, H&M walking away with criticism about how things are run.
That article is 2002. It's obvious nothing has changed.

But it certainly needs to.

@TatianaBis

Agree with your last post. Do read that newspaper article, it's focussing on that time and an eye opener.

It's not just the Royals who make staff sign NDAs. All celebrities do to protect their private lives. I have a friend who used to be a nanny to a well known British singer and his actress, now ex, wife. She doesn't talk about it (although she did have an occasional whinge at the time) but legally she couldn't even if she wanted to.

@Sprining

“She didn’t ask for it as a working royal. She asked the HR team who then said no you are not an employee.“

If she asked HR, then she was asking as a working royal, no?

Presumably as working members of the ‘firm’ they are employees in some capacity?

Who addresses their work concerns and needs?

I find it odd that she had no problem in organising her own obstetrician rather than using the appointed RF medic yet when it came to mental health she was prevented from accessing help from anywhere. What, she didn't have a doctor who she could contact? I'm sure she would have still had American health insurance she could have made use of.

It also seems odd that she went to HR about it. Yes, any organisation has obligations to ensuring the mental health and wellbeing of their staff but this is generally only in terms of reducing hours/days worked, temporary amendments to duties (a phone no for a referral to a counsellor if your lucky enough to have workplace health insurance) however, the onus is still on the person to seek help through their GP for mental health issues to then be referred for the appropriate help and the fit note that warrants the above amendments to be made in the workplace.

So, was access to an actual medical professional denied or is it that she had no right to request a reduction in the number of public duties she was expected to carry out (due to stress etc) because she wasn't an 'employee' and she and Harry didn't feel comfortable in discussing with his family the reasons for her wanting to do less. If it is the latter you cant then accuse the family of ignoring her mental health concerns if they weren't brought to the fore - were they just expected to know.

The reason they have got a team of lawyers in is that a number of the complainants have threatened to bring a case against the Palace on the basis that the palace protected the bully rather than the bullied. Contrary to most of the press coverage here and especially in the US ( who in my experience have zero understanding of how protected U.K. employees are in comparison to the US where you can pretty much fire at will) it is in Meghan best interest for this investigation to take place because the palace will be looking to defend their stance at the time which was that she was not a bully.

Where there are accusations especially from multiple people it is now accepted practice that an independent legal investigation takes place as this will stand up better in a tribunal.

The palace cannot do this with the Andrew situation because any independent investigation could prejudice a future court action and in Andrew’s case particularly, a plea bargain, as this is the most common outcome in the US court system.

That’s the rationale Twitchit. But in the real world employees who ‘threaten’ the palace are just bullied into submission. These are not even particularly senior staff making the allegations. That Knauf is still in job since his errant emails kicked this off indicate he has approval at some level.

We’re not talking about Andrew’s potentially criminal activities

@MrsTabithaTwitchit

The reason they have got a team of lawyers in is that a number of the complainants have threatened to bring a case against the Palace on the basis that the palace protected the bully rather than the bullied. Contrary to most of the press coverage here and especially in the US ( who in my experience have zero understanding of how protected U.K. employees are in comparison to the US where you can pretty much fire at will) it is in Meghan best interest for this investigation to take place because the palace will be looking to defend their stance at the time which was that she was not a bully.

Where there are accusations especially from multiple people it is now accepted practice that an independent legal investigation takes place as this will stand up better in a tribunal.

The palace cannot do this with the Andrew situation because any independent investigation could prejudice a future court action and in Andrew’s case particularly, a plea bargain, as this is the most common outcome in the US court system.

Yes this is totally true

I think people that bring up the past issues haven't really took into account how much things have changed. We expect employees to be far more protected now than even 10 years ago. Let alone longer. Times both inside the royal household and outside it have changed. They are slower at keeping up in general but not with employees rights etc.

@joanna67

It's not just the Royals who make staff sign NDAs. All celebrities do to protect their private lives. I have a friend who used to be a nanny to a well known British singer and his actress, now ex, wife. She doesn't talk about it (although she did have an occasional whinge at the time) but legally she couldn't even if she wanted to.

Yes

As do the troublesome two in their household I can imagine

@Roussette

As a mum running a business on your own, I suggest you don’t employ staff as you would be a nightmare boss if those are your expectations of running a team

Bloody hell.
Is this what MN is about now... posts like this slagging off others posters just for having a different opinion?

There was a lot Mummyozzi said of sense.

I’m guessing you aren’t UK based which is why you are so misguided in your understanding of relationships between principals and staff at the palace and the scale of operations
Do you work at the Palace Sally and can categorically state exactly how it works?
No. Thought not.

None of us know.

Thanks Rousette, this is really kind. I am not bothered thoufh. This issue is polarising and I think it's really great we are all so analytical and debating it. So many intelligent points of view that differ but I do respect them.

I don't have a lot of adult contact as a Mum & running an online interior/homewares store. My job isn't that intellectual, more creative.

It is really nice to be able to be stimulated and discuss these issues with other ladies. The media rarely ever goes deep. It's such an interesting topic.

I was a Journalist in another life and wish I could be writing articles on this and researching everything. Mumsnet is a close second

So is Charles going to remove the injunction against his former valet so he can participate in the investigation?

Very funny

I can't detail it because it would certainly be deleted, but given Michael Peat's unfortunate blabbering which made it quite clear what the injunction was about, there's about as much chance of Fawcett being allowed to speak as there was of Burrell entering a witness box

And look what happened there ...

I was a Journalist in another life and wish I could be writing articles on this and researching everything

I bet this is fascinating for you then!

Ladywithlapdog: quote: "I feel sorry for MM. Obviously if there was bullying that needs to be addressed but the timing is self-evident.""

Ladywithlapdog -
I'd head it's the opposite - that M&H heard that staff at palace were now pressing ahead with their request for bullying to be investigated, which was on hold entirely due to MM's Court case, which was held back last year due to miscarriage, so have been waiting quite some time now.

Palace are now in position to move on the complaints and the H&M interview was moved forward to counter the bullying claims.

Makes more sense to me too, to get MM's narrative of events out before the staff's versions are allowed the opportunity to be held now that MM's court case has held it that process for so long.

MM's court case against her dad and the letters and the Mail newspaper

@Marmaladeagain you don’t know that any more than I do so it’s just speculation.

Ladywithlapdog -
No not speculation - it is in The Times behind The Times paywall - see below, not sure if it will open for you as I can't share it open myself.

It isn't speculation it's how law work in the UK, are you in the US? I'll quote part below and you'll see prevented from giving evidence while an on-going investigation. I don't have option to share for you.

"Several former and current royal aides who were prevented from giving evidence in court during Meghan’s recent legal case about privacy are expected to speak to the inquiry.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/palace-raises-stakes-in-meghan-bullying-inquiry-7v7wkjntw