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 absolutely agree that the environmental improvements at Highgrove have had a positive impact, and it’s clear that a great deal of care has gone into managing the estate thoughtfully and I would persobnally be dleighted to visit but at £35 a pop I'll probably just stick to our English Heritage memberships.

That said, I do think it’s fair to raise questions about the origins and structure of the resources involved. To use a deliberately provocative analogy: if someone were to steal food from a supermarket and give it to a homeless person, we might applaud the generosity of the act but we wouldn’t ignore the question of where the food came from or how it was acquired and I would still be a thief.

It’s entirely possible for something to be both beneficial in one respect and deserving of scrutiny in another. If you don't want to come over as a mean pay your staff a decent wage, don't shout at them or lose your temper - it's not rocket science and if you do - don't expect a chorus of approval except from the most craven of your supporters - who it would seem are withering on the vine anyway.

Over decades Charles has stuck his head above the parapet over many worthy issues, many of them environmental, which the rest of us have now caught up with.

He’s braved mockery and unpopularity, even insults and humiliation, to stand up for the causes he sincerely believes in. A pp above who worked with him on a stone walling conservation project has said what a humble, genuine and modest man he is.

Yet somehow OP sees him as a hate-figure, out to do down everyone he encounters all for financial gain.

I don’t buy it and I think this attitude yells you more about OP than KC.

When I think of all the appalling people in positions of power in the world today- and OP picks on KC. Pathetic!

All those pesky helicopters and Bentley's flown on state visits - do as I say not as I do. At least Greta is consistent with her passion for the cause.

err - this is the Royal Forum and we are discussing his appalling treatment of his gardener's at Highgrove and it's my last thread before retiring once again from this hallowed ground and you can get back to your Harry Hate Hours which I know you all love to hate without impertinent interruptions !

Can you not give credit where it’s due.

Greta (and my daughter is very much in the Greta mould, so I get the concerns) is not a Head of State.

Tell the truth now @vera99 . Would you care about any of this if Queen Diana was by his side?

Surely we can have mixed views about Charles?

I applaud him for his eco views and going against the grain with those when he was mocked. He was right. However, having seen footage of how it all works at Highgrove, the bottom line is... he can afford to.

Others running country estates cannot. The general public can't. It really is a vanity project for him, to be applauded, but not viable for every day folk. He has staff managing all sorts of eco projects... from woodchip boilers, ground source heating systems that are hugely labour intensive, and its sewage system that runs through reed and willow beds. All very noble, well done Charles, but not mainstream for those on a smaller budget!

That’s rather the point though, isn’t it? Charles’ role means he can’t really avoid travel. But he does have the money and the resources to do other things that those of us without his travel-heavy lifestyle can’t do, like converting the State Bentleys to biofuel and his personal cars similarly, to reduce his own emissions as much as possible.

(a PP also pointed out who those committed to climate change at an inter-governmental have very high carbon emissions due to their frequent travel, which is seen as a necessary cost, counterbalanced for the bigger picture work they are aiming at)

It's not about 'picking on him'!
It's about holding him to account! Why can't we?

I do the same with politicians, Prime Ministers, my local Council, and more. Do we just have to accept everything going? Roll over in acceptance?

I'm no monarchist, but Diana was a stellar celebrity one who could have easily eclipsed his aura. Had he been more emotionally grounded and capable of genuine love, they might have elevated the monarchy to new heights. But he couldn't handle it. It reveals a smallness of spirit when someone can't bask in reflected glory and seeks only their own. Oh and Harry would have remained on side as well - so a royal BOGOF deal like no other !

You do know that these sorts of eccentric projects are the beginnings of technology that will eventually - one must hope, for the sake of the environment - filter down into the everyday? Putting men in space wasn't mainstream for anyone but Nasa personnel, but that doesn't mean we didn't get memory foam mattresses, cordless tools and decent office air con off the back of it. All innovation is a process that started with a nutjob with a wild idea.

Yes of course I know that Pigeon. I am talking about 'now'. But thanks for your comment, I get what you are saying

I'll take that as a yes. If Queen Diana was the one wafting through the gardens of Highgrove, you wouldn't have given a monkeys about the pay of the gardeners. Presumably, you would think that one of her dazzling smiles was payment enough.

Well, that's a bit mean I think most people believed Diana genuinely cared about others. It's a rare quality, a bit like with Harry. It's very hard to fake that kind of empathy, and not many people have it.

I've volunteered for recycling at Glastonbury for many years before that, I went as a regular punter. I remember one year when Prince Charles, as he was then, visited as a guest of (now Sir) Michael Eavis. I think he had been over at the Greenpeace Fields earlier.

He was riding as a passenger with Michael driving the Land Rover along one of the metalled walkways, and we all had to move aside. Charles was waving to people, but honestly, most of the cheers were for Michael. He’s like a saint he has a real presence about him. In that brief moment, I remember distinctly that I didn’t really care about Charles. His aura just didn’t compare. Gosh have just looked it up it was 15 years ago ! Tempus fugit !

Yet again another post proving beyond doubt you are definitely not a republican!

If you don't want to come over as a mean pay your staff a decent wage, don't shout at them or lose your temper

Again, the only one documented as shouting in the article is Innimeé.

Diana, despite her faults, certainly had a warmth and care for people. I haven't yet seen that side of Harry (I don't think anyone who cared for people could write certain passages, for example).

Speaking of Glastonbury, I’ve actually heard first-hand gossip from people who knew Harry. He used to visit regularly and was known to party pretty hard in some of the more 'upmarket' areas. Apparently, even though he always had detectives shadowing him, nobody ever arrested him for drug use despite it being done openly, from what I was told. Why is that? Is there one law for them and another for the rest of us?

I have visited Highgrove and the gardeners I spoke to adored their job. Take the Murdoch press with a grain of salt.

King Charles is allowed to request tasks to be done in specific ways. He is allowed to notice plants near his pool etc.

The King's Highgrove garden was amazing. The gardeners expressed that they had artistic licence over many decorative trimming etc..

So tickets are basic ally £40 with no concessions. That's a very high end price - Chatsorth House and Gardens were £35 which we did earlier in the year. Someone did ask about the gardeners ! https://www.youtube.com/shorts/p3kEJeLED0k

Yes indeed and it is excused as a quid pro quo for the prestige of being in a 'Royal' or Royal adjacent job.
You should just be grateful for being employed by the Royal Family, it's a privilege, don't you know!

Don’t visit Highgrove then 🤷‍♀️

Other jobs are available 🙄

Why didn't you and your friends inform the police yourselves?

Yet this upstanding man would apparently be her choice for king! 🤷‍♀️