King Charles - disquiet at Highgrove & the gardeners’ exodus - SUNDAY TIMES INVESTIGATION

[vera99]

Murdoch is growing bolder in his dotage — first with Trump, and now with another bombshell investigation into the grasping, stagnant, and catastrophically out-of-touch Windsors. And yet we keep pumping more public money into this so-called dysfunctional family.

What you need to know

King’s demands, staff shortages and low pay led to gardener exodus at Highgrove

Royal charity which runs gardens told to offer mental health support after formal investigation

Charles has lost 11 of 12 garden staff since 2022 including two head gardeners who quit within a year

Monarch said of one worker: “Do not put that man in front of me again”

After Ukraine invasion King proposed plugging staff shortages with war refugees or the elderly

At one point half of staff were on minimum wage

https://archive.ph/fspT3#selection-1495.0-1501.155

I may have misunderstood of course, but I thought the whole arrangement was put in place so that the King had access to Highgrove for the rest of his life, and presumably a say in how it is managed and maintained-because why wouldn't he? It’s well known that he loves the
place. If he had wanted to, he could have done something about the wages. Nobody, surely, can think it’s a good thing he didn’t? Either when he was in direct or indirect control?

From what other more in-depth posters have explained, it does appear you have misunderstood.

the whole article is a column filler with a click bait title ( like the thread title) , it doesn’t explain things any better than the warning signs printed deliberately small at the end of a manual does.

as someone who isn’t particularly a royalist or monarchist, there maybe many things to criticise the royal family for , this is not one of them.

You're right of course, bluegreygreen, and it's worth remembering that the Foundation itself only came into being as a result of many charities Charles set up - often on no more than a princely whim - losing both money and staff

Apparently the result was a much-overdue amalgamation, initially resisted by Charles himself, which may well say a lot about his organisational abilities and willingness to heed advice

Much more on this in Tom Bower's Rebel Prince which I've mentioned before - it really iss an excellent read

Fully agree it’s a pretty shit article. However, the posts I’ve read seem mostly to be saying nobody forces them to work there/think of the prestige/maybe it’s a training position and so on. Nothing about why the new arrangement the King has set up maintains historically low rates of pay-which, incidentally, appear to be a routine thing in the royal family.

That's a very good point, and would make sense.

To be completely honest, I don’t really care about the staff , they obviously chose to work for the royal family, the pay isn’t hidden, they must have their own reasons to do so !
as long as they are not being abused then it’s up to them, it’s not something I would consider as a career.

Yes and that is what you are doing, imagining as you’ve no idea really have you. I suspect you of something, doesn’t make it a fact.

Sounds interesting puzzled, but must admit I’m fairly apathetic about it all.

.

The pay of palace staff has always surprised people when it’s reported but the people doing the work aren’t surprised by the pay - they know before they decide to start what they’ll be getting paid. So there must be some reason people take the jobs there - something else they are getting out of it.

However what the employees can’t predict is the standard of employment conditions.

But that’s when the pay issue takes care of itself - if the working conditions don’t justify taking the lower pay you will lose the employees.

Which seems to be what has happened here.

When working conditions were acceptable at Highgrove the lower pay was acceptable.

When working conditions deteriorated after the Foundation took over management - the lower pay became a sticking point.

So the employer has a choice to hire and retain good staff - improve conditions or pay or both.

Why? Because if you admit that your defending Charles for the very thing you criticise another person for doing it'll just show what a hypocrite you are? I mean we can already see it to be fair

Sorry really flattered , but not interested.

They are public figures who receive vast amounts of taxpayers' money and, on top of that, are unelected heads of state. Speculation about their personalities and behaviour based on publically displayed attitudes is entirely fair game. In fact, it's par for the course.

And we’re not just guessing in the dark: we have plenty of on-the-record insight from Diana and others who worked closely with them, giving us a solid basis for informed inference.

Spare a thought for the tragic tale of "Backstairs Billy" William Tallon who devoted his entire life to loyally serving the Queen Mother, waiting on her hand and foot for decades.He was utterly dedicated, often working behind the scenes with discretion, warmth, and unfailing attention to her every need.

And yet, when she died, he was treated as though he were nothing more than an inconvenient relic, discarded and shut out, like something the dog had dragged in.No honours, no real thanks, no lasting recognition just quiet removal from the royal orbit he had faithfully served for so long.

A sobering reminder of how quickly loyalty can be forgotten in the royal household once you're no longer useful.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2002/nov/09/pressandpublishing.themonarchy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WilliamTallon

Ah-fair enough. It’s actually the only thing I really care about in this story. I find very rich people paying their workers crap wages petty and depressing. And I find the fact that people who support the RF find it acceptable even more depressing.

Indeed - we should know our place.

The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
God made them, high or lowly,
And ordered their estate.

.

🤣 but surely octopus 🐙, shouldn’t you be slapping those straws aside instead?!!

I’m not a royalist, I find Charles (the subject of this thread) spoilt and peevish, but I don’t think that Mr Tallon was mistreated by the QM (of whom I also wasn’t a fan) or her family. He stayed in his apartment for a couple of years after she died and a new abode was then found for him. It’s not the QM’s fault that he was “lonely” - the employer is not responsible for the employee’s personal life. There was nothing stopping him finding friends or a partner whilst he worked for her, I’m sure other servants managed it. Whether it’s the royal household or Merrill Lynch or M&S, you should never sacrifice your emotional life for your employer and in most cases they won’t expect it.

Do you really feel this way?
if so I’m really sorry things are so tough for you .

I'm comfortably off so don’t really dwell on “rich” people’s houses or things.

So am I, actually but I don’t need to shout about it. Everything I have, I’ve got through the sweat of my brow. I inherited little, except love, good manners (manners maketh the man, after all), and a healthy disrespect for those with unearned power ruling over us. This isn’t some bitter rant about wealth; it’s about one entitled family squatting over the country like Larkin’s toad and in this thread, specifically the behaviour of one Charles William Arthur George. If envy is all you can see, that says more about you than me !

So you are aware that , there are many more connected families “ squatting “ over the country aren’t you?
many far more rich than the royal family, many inherited just the same, they don’t give back to the country .
do they bother you?
and no need to be so defensive! I was being sympathetic!

Vera - you are living in the past.

I'm not a particularly privileged person - we’ve always worked in the public sector and we live in a suburban semi, but I just don’t recognise the picture you paint of Britain today.

Yes, some people are much worse off than me and that concerns me, but the fact that lots of people are better off than me concerns me NOT ONE BIT. The existence of richer people, or the RF, is not the reason that some people are poor.

i think this is an illogical thread, based on a storm in a plant pot, which is just desperate to see evil where there isn’t any.

In case anyone is interested, the King comes in at number 238 on the Sunday Times Rich List for 2025.

(Yes, I do feel obliged to look these things up.)

I am that’s why we get to visit so many of their stately homes and enjoy their grounds. Successive progressive governments held their feet to the fire and taxed their unearned wealth appropriately. That’s how we got the NHS, the welfare state, affordable housing, and the other fruits of a more egalitarian society one built on merit, not privilege. And that’s what my father fought for in WWII.

But the pendulum has swung too far. Our new tech lords, with vast fortunes and supranational power, now hold far more sway than the landed elites of old. Before we can challenge that, we need a state in which educated citizens make informed choices based on facts not propaganda, not inherited narratives, but truth.

Therein lies the problem. The powers that be don’t want that, and the shopfront of a royal family that represents all of those things stands in the way of progresshowever much individual members may or may not be ‘good’ people or do ‘good things.’

Once people see the way society and power structures operate, and see through the artifice of societal and political strictures, we’d be closer to a utopia. We may never fully get there, but we shouldn’t stop striving for it. After all, it’s what Viscount Stansgate would have wanted !