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

Yes !
omg they released a picture to mark his birthday ( as they do for all , every year) such scandalous pr skullduggery! 🙄

How dare a child have a birthday when the OP wants to froth about gardeners!

I'm sure Diana is not smiling down at you, @vera99 , while you denigrate her beloved oldest son and confidente and her grandchildren.

But I’m not and you won’t find that kind of PR puffery in The Guardian or The Independent either. It’s not news; it’s just unfiltered Palace press releases about a boy’s birthday. Interesting that even the Mail has it buried further down the page and they usually have an unerring eye for what drives clicks and, therefore, revenue. Possibly because most people simply don’t care, and many have a quietly resentful “alright for them” attitude about it all.

Plus having some good words about Diana isn't some lifelong pact that I musn't break until death.

.

Taking something out of a well-ordered portfolio “by exception” just makes things legally untidy. Lawyers prefer order and certainty over exceptions, every time.

I'm quite sure the eye wateringly expensive lawyers the royals favour would have coped.

The Duchy purchased a very valuable asset (in 1980 when they bought Highgrove the purchase price was estimated to be between £865k, it’s now worth £39m). And Charles has paid rent to live there too, and will continue to do so.

Charles effectively paid rent to himself which is quite a neat trick.

Probably unsurprising though given this is the man who grew his own trees on Duchy land then sold them to the Duchy pocketing some £2m in the process not to mention trying to claim his polo ponies as a business expense and more recently skimming charities and government to line his own pockets.

A future King.

Thanks for that, CC you've done a fine job of pruning back the overgrowth on this thread and laying bare the rot at the root of the King's hypocrisy.

Not mine! Don’t bother telling me I don’t get a vote or a choice and that he’s mine whether I like it or not. That’s my fantasy, not a fact.

Gosh how sad it must be for you.

My point though is that it wasn't just " a boy's birthday" . Whether you like it or not he's a future King.

On the subject of cementng things over, BemusedAmerican, it's worth bearing in mind the views of the Truro farmers who saw land taken for a planned supermarket and Poundbury lookalike. TBF they'd doubtless have been profitable for the Duchy, but the intentions did seem a little odd coming from someone who regularly prates about preserving countryside heritage.
Apologies for a Mail link, but for once it's a fairly good piece

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2836104/Hypocrisy-capital-HRH-s-locals-think-Charles-new-rural-development.html

Then there's the potentially damaging oyster farm on the Helford River - interesting not least because this one raises once again the issue over the Duchy's ever-shifting claimed status

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prince-charles-s-farm-accused-of-ecovandalism-6256927.html

A true King ......

True. As I said earlier, this makes most RF threads look positively sane…. !

That’s very interestingI hadn’t been aware of that. I’m a trustee of a charity that’s currently seeking a change of use for a farm on the edge of a conurbation. One of the main challenges we’re facing is the entrenched “town centre first” planning policy, along with a presumption against allowing new developments that might draw activity away from established urban centres even when those existing centres aren’t meeting local needs.

There’s a longstanding sense of "droit de seigneur" around all of this a feeling that the rules are selectively applied: one set for those with influence, and another for everyone else.

www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jan/13/prince-charles-lambasted-new-poundbury-truro?utm_source=chatgpt.com

And the oysters that's a shocker from 2011 - he was promoting something that has become a thing of increasing concern. Makes the ragwort anecdote seem, somewhat weedy in comparison and the Duchy was arguing basically can you eff off it's nothing legally to do with you.

Yes, Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas) are increasingly seen as a problem in parts of the UK—particularly in intertidal zones and marine conservation areas. Here's a breakdown of the issue:
🐚 What are Pacific oysters?

• Native to the Pacific coast of Asia, introduced to the UK in the 1960s–70s for aquaculture after native oysters (Ostrea edulis) declined.
• Valued for food production—they grow faster and are more resilient than natives.

⚠️ Why are they considered a problem?

1. Invasive species
2. Pacific oysters are now naturalising—spawning and spreading in the wild, especially along warmer southern and eastern UK coasts.
3. They form dense, sharp-shelled reefs that can outcompete native species and alter habitats.
4. Threat to native oysters
5. They don’t directly hybridise with native oysters, but they compete for space and resources.
6. Their spread hinders native oyster restoration projects, which are already fragile.
7. Environmental impact
8. Their sharp shells can smother mudflats, saltmarshes, and seagrass beds—altering ecosystems that support wading birds and marine life.
9. In some areas, they create hard substrate where there was once soft sediment.
10. Public safety and access
11. Their razor-sharp shells pose risks on public beaches—especially where they form reefs near bathing areas.

📍 Where is it a problem?

• South coast of England (e.g. Solent, Essex, Kent, Cornwall).
• Also increasingly observed along Wales and parts of Scotland.
• Warming seas due to climate change are accelerating their ability to breed in the wild.

🧪 Policy and control

• Natural England has designated Pacific oysters as a non-native species of concern in sensitive areas.
• However, there’s no UK-wide ban—they’re still farmed commercially under licence.
• Control efforts include:
• Manual removal (labour-intensive and limited impact).
• Regulating aquaculture sites more strictly.
• Local councils restricting activities in protected zones.

Summary: ✅ Still legal to farm and eat ⚠️ Environmental concern in the wild ❌ Difficult to eradicate once established If you're involved in conservation, shellfish farming, or coastal planning, I can help you find up-to-date guidance from regulators like Natural England, CEFAS, or local Inshore Fisheries & Conservation Authorities (IFCAs).

Quelle surprise - he won in the end. And even more surpise the judge had a knighthood - that's how it works.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Charles_(judge)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35958262

There’s a longstanding sense of "droit de seigneur" around all of this a feeling that the rules are selectively applied: one set for those with influence, and another for everyone else

Nothing new about that, @vera99, and I've no doubt it would be just the same whoever the head of state was

However not all of them make quite such a thing of lecturing others about how vital it is that nature's bounty remain unsullied

I see he's bringing "Harmony" into things again with some summit, and don't know if you've ever read his book of the same name?
Between the musings on the cosmos, sufism, sacred geometry and much more it's quite an eye-opener

Edited to add that, as you say, it's hardly a surprise that the hearing was "won".
Fascinating, though, to watch the Duchy's status swinging this way and that according to what suits, but again hardly anything new

Your affection for Diana and Harry is interesting, and is in line with an article I remember reading years ago…please don’t ask for links…it really was when dinosaurs roamed the earth!

It was lighthearted, but looked at the perceptions of various royals. Those who adored Diana tended not to like Charles (not talking about recriminations over their marriage problems, more to do with their perceived characters) and similarly with William and Harry, the Queen and Princess Margaret etc. it was fascinating that people tended to put them into two categories, with Diana, Harry, PM versus Charles, William and the Queen. I’m firmly in the second category- preferring introverts, people with a bit of self-doubt and generally less charisma and glamour than category 1.

i just think charisma and glamour lets you off the hook so much in life and I don’t trust those qualities. I feel a natural sympathy for the less obviously attractive plodders!

If we’re talking ‘droit de seigneur’, the worst offender in recent years has been the BBC. Blimey, the stuff some of their ‘stars’ got away with over the past couple of decades is shocking.

He’s a believer in homeopathy which is essentially just water, with no scientific credibility. That alone raises eyebrows. But I remember during his coronation, when the anointing with holy oil was hidden behind a screen, thinking there was something distinctly odd about it. It felt like a throwback to divine right rituals, as if we the public weren’t worthy of witnessing such a sacred moment. Combined with his promotion of pseudoscience, it all gives off a strange mix of mysticism and elitism.

They’re not held up as role models or people to be deferred to, thought.

I feel the need to clarify this for @Puzzledandpissedoff and. @CathyorClaire you may have missed previous posts from the op , but as you both are real republicans who while I may not always agree with , do present your opinions in a positive way without name calling .
the op is a republican who supports the monarchy if good king Harry wears the crown!

Stuart Hall, JImmy Savill, Rolf Harris - all once- cherished and respected presenters, well-known for their charity work and wholesomeness.

And most painful of all to me: Huw Edwards. I’ve never quite recovered from his downfall and was truly shocked.

All facilitated by the BBC management.

i agree that Russell Brand and Greg Wallace weren’t role models as such.

Ah yes Huw Edwards was a real shocker - he was the voice of the Royal nation as well a bit like the Dimbledeys in days of yore. I heard if from Andrew Marr though I've abandoned the BBC quite a while ago. I don't have TV or a licence anymore.