Once again on The Royals & feudal employee relations
The Guardian broke the story during the period of official mourning for the Queen that numbers of people working for King Charles at Clarence House had been served with redundancy notices. The notices carried the usual employment law rubric that those impacted might be redeployed into other roles or offered enhanced redundancy. The question remains why Charles, now one of the world’s wealthiest individuals, needs to make anyone redundant. Much of the work he had oversight of around the Duchy of Cornwall and as Prince of Wales will now be taken over by William who clearly doesn’t have people on hand to do it.
The story developed further when the Murdoch Times (15th September) that numbers of workers at Buckingham Palace faced redundancy since they had ‘death’ clauses in their contracts that stipulated that their employment ended with the death of the existing Monarch. It sounds feudal and it is. The same or very similar roles will exist under King Charles. No doubt however he wants to bring an entourage with him from Clarence House (those he isn’t sacking).
The Guardian has now reported that 20 employees directly impacted are those that worked for the late Queen. They may be harder to redeploy or prefer to take a leaver payment but the choice should rest with them
The Royals actions hardly speak of good employment practices with fair competition for roles and a commitment to a diverse workforce.
Some Royal Employees are already unionised. After the events of September, others may well be signing up. The reality behind the Royal pomp and circumstance is distinctly shabby
Leave a Reply