Royal Adjacent: By Royal Appointment

[CuriousParker]

Any & all discussion about courtiers & household staff. 

Examples: 

• Private Secretaries
• Press Secretaries
• Valets
• Dressers

Pictures are only allowed in this topic if they do not fit in any other “Pictures Aplenty!” topics.

[BlackberryJam]

I usually avoid talking about the staff, because mostly they are just doing their jobs, other than say, Angela Kelly, who wrote a book. They usually are paid crap, so I'm not going to assess them for fashion. 

However, there is Major Johnny Thompson. If you like an attractive man in a kilt, there are several photos of him out there and accounts that follow him. You can even play "spot Johnny" in a lot of the BRF photos. Enjoy! 

[CountryGirl]

Tommy Lascelles (aka The Mustache) is one staffer I'd love to know more about and you just know he had all the tea.

[ancslove]

You might like Valentine Low's book Courtiers.  There was some interesting stuff about Tommy Lascelles!

[Oosala]

4 hours ago, BlackberryJam said:

However, there is Major Johnny Thompson.

Oh my GOD.  He is the hotness.  (visualize 66-year-old woman fanning her face)

[katie9918]

5 hours ago, CountryGirl said:

Tommy Lascelles (aka The Mustache) is one staffer I'd love to know more about and you just know he had all the tea.

There are select portions of his writings published. I have all three books and they are great.

[gingerella]

9 hours ago, BlackberryJam said:

However, there is Major Johnny Thompson. If you like an attractive man in a kilt, there are several photos of him out there and accounts that follow him. You can even play "spot Johnny" in a lot of the BRF photos. Enjoy! 

Is this a euphemism???

[Zella]

10 hours ago, CountryGirl said:

Tommy Lascelles (aka The Mustache) is one staffer I'd love to know more about and you just know he had all the tea.

 

4 hours ago, katie9918 said:

There are select portions of his writings published. I have all three books and they are great.

I second the recommendation for his books. The real Tommy Lascelles was actually nowhere near as uptight as he is depicted. His letters are particularly interesting and are actually quite perceptive, charming, and witty.  

Edited March 28 by Zella

[Bethany]

Angela Kelly has been evicted from her "grace and favour" home

[Notabug]

9 minutes ago, Elizabeth Anne said:

Angela Kelly has been evicted from her "grace and favour" home

Funny how different papers take different approaches in spinning a story.  I saw another article claiming that Ms. Kelly had a retirement cottage ready to go for when she no longer needed to be near the Queen, that she never intended to live on the grounds of Windsor Castle forever and was glad to be getting back to her own place and the relative peace and quiet away from the Royals and their drama.

As for her business phone no longer being in service; I've got a cell phone from my employer, too, and I expect that it won't work either when I am not longer employed by them.

It does seem that reports that the Queen made provisions in her will for Ms. Kelly to live at Windsor forever were untrue,

Edited May 1 by Notabug

[ancslove]

Charles, William, and Harry didn't like Angela Kelly.  Possibly because a lot of the time, she must have seemed even closer to the Queen than they were.  So I can believe that Charles would want her out once she's no longer a Crown employee.  But because of that, among other reasons, I can also believe that Kelly wouldn't want to stay living on Windsor grounds after her Queen/employer/friend has passed.  This is probably a very juicy, on the surface, story that's worked out the best for everyone involved.  Royal staff aren't paid the greatest, generally speaking, but it's very possible that the Queen made provisions in her will for Angela Kelly to have enough to live comfortably for the rest of her life wherever she wanted, even if not at Windsor.

[Bethany]

It's an interesting story because even the tabloids can't seem to decide which lane to take.  Is Angela Kelly a grifter who is holding the threat of a tell all over Charles head to get what she wants?  Or is Charles settling old scores with someone he dislikes?  Or is this actually a loving tribute to a long time employee that has been twisted in the telling?  Time will tell.

[film noire]

5 hours ago, Elizabeth Anne said:

It's an interesting story because even the tabloids can't seem to decide which lane to take. 

Good point, Elizabeth Anne  - that tab story does include every angle.

Kelly's thoughts via her instagram story might be a hint of something murky she's "rising above":

"I am too old to worry about who likes me and who dislikes me! I have more important things to do! If you love me – I love you! If you support me – I support you! If you hate me – I don’t care!’ 

[ancslove]

Even that could be just rising above the old discord between her and Charles/William/Harry, not about anything new.  But this keeps her name in the news and reminds everyone of who she is, which is good for her since I believe she still has one more book in her publishing contract.

[Jane Tuesday]

4 hours ago, film noire said:

'I am too old to worry about who likes me and who dislikes me! I have more important things to do! If you love me – I love you! If you support me – I support you! If you hate me – I don’t care!'

This should be stitched onto a pillow. 

[merylinkid]

Or it could be joy at being away from living anywhere near He Who Must Not Be Named.

[Jeeves]

I confess, I enjoyed the handsome Major Jonathan "Johnny" Thompson's significant visibility during the Coronation ceremony.

The Daily Mail has published this profile of him. And, yes indeed, he's married. 

[PepSinger]

@Ohiopirate02, I agree with you. I was a little taken aback when I saw Camilla’s portrait. Then again, that’s what happens when there’s zero diversity on your staff.

[pancake bacon]

4 minutes ago, PepSinger said:

@Ohiopirate02, I agree with you. I was a little taken aback when I saw Camilla’s portrait. Then again, that’s what happens when there’s zero diversity on your staff.

It’s a certainly there is zero diversity on staff? (Genuinely asking) 

[ancslove]

There isn't nearly enough diversity on their staff, although there are a few people of color and of different backgrounds.

But I'm not sure that would fix the "issue" here.  Because long-term staff who are very familiar with the palace decorations and know what these artifacts are would know they are not depictions of slaves or blackamoors.  

And I do think that if a scholar or professed "expert" is going to call something out on social media, then it is on them to do a minimum of research first.  

[Ohiopirate02]

3 minutes ago, pancake bacon said:

It’s a certainly there is zero diversity on staff? (Genuinely asking) 

Not zero.  In 2021, 8.5% of BP's staff was diverse, per BBC.  It also really depends on where these staff members work. Are they footmen, maids, kitchen staff, and gardeners or are they in positions of power within the palace.  

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57589589

 

[Avaleigh]

26 minutes ago, pancake bacon said:

It’s a certainly there is zero diversity on staff? (Genuinely asking) 

I don't know about the staff who work at every royal residence but at Buckingham Palace the number is at 9.6% for ethnic minorities. The palace wants to bump that up to a full 10% (which was their goal for 2022 but they didn't quite hit it.) This number is also up from where they were in 2021, so things are improving in that area.

Edited May 9 by Avaleigh

[PepSinger]

7 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Not zero.  In 2021, 8.5% of BP's staff was diverse, per BBC.  It also really depends on where these staff members work. Are they footmen, maids, kitchen staff, and gardeners or are they in positions of power within the palace.  

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-57589589

 

Thank you. I was being hyperbolic in my previous statement. Needless to say, there’s a great deal of room for improvement.

[PRgal]

7 minutes ago, Makai said:

It’s not and that’s not what I take issue with. The employees of the royal family and sphere of influence around them is also less diverse than the general population. 

Is there someone other measure of representation that they are doing better at? 

1. Then the first issue is a recruitment issue as much as an issue for the careers available.  I can tell you from personal experience, both for me and my same-ethnic peers, that certain paths are...well...discouraged.  Even if it's in the medical profession, which is something that Asian parents stereotypically want their kids to go into.  For me, anyway, I had an internship at a bank as an event planner.  I thought it was PERFECT, since it was at a financial institution like my parents would have wanted (ideally, my dad would have wanted me to be a hedge fund "sis," I think.  Or private equity) and in event planning/PR like I wanted (and did a non-degree graduate program in).  Nope.  I was guilted into accepting another job that I hated and lasted maybe three months.

 

ETA:  I know I'm not alone in this kind of experience.

2. Not really (unless you count social class...younger royals aren't marrying aristocrats anymore), but that's not my point.

Edited May 10 by PRgal

[PepSinger]

7 minutes ago, Makai said:

It’s not and that’s not what I take issue with. The employees of the royal family and sphere of influence around them is also less diverse than the general population. 

Exactly. That’s just a fact.

Edited May 10 by PepSinger

[Avaleigh]

32 minutes ago, Makai said:

Is there someone other measure of representation that they are doing better at?

In terms of the staff at Buckingham Palace, the numbers have been increasing each year. They haven't hit their targeted goals, but they've pledged to do better and have shown improvement in this area. It isn't perfect yet, but they're making the effort.

[ancslove]

They are improving slowly, but I think this is a very valid criticism.  Staff diversity is better than it used to be and continues to improve, but it’s still shamefully low.  

[Avaleigh]

2 minutes ago, ancslove said:

They are improving slowly, but I think this is a very valid criticism.  Staff diversity is better than it used to be and continues to improve, but it’s still shamefully low.  

I think there are other factors that don't make this an easy process that is quick to fix. A lot of the jobs at BP don't pay well so for some people that's discouraging off the bat in terms of applying. In addition to that you have people who might not be keen on the idea of working for an institution that they view as oppressive. 

[MissLucas]

Last summer 9.6% employees of Buckingham Palace came from ethnic minority backgrounds. 13% of the UK's population have an ethnic minority background. 10% of the MPs in the House of Commons and 7.3% MPs in the House of Lords have an ethnic minority background.

[Agalea Charis]

There are other forms of representation such as religion, education background, and socioeconomic class. In those groups exist people of all races. 

I am of the belief that two people of the same race can have two different sets of morals. In my case, just because someone is biracial, does not mean they represent me or I see myself in them. I choose to look beyond race to see if a person is someone I can find appreciation for. People are not monolithic. 

[Ohiopirate02]

2 minutes ago, MissLucas said:

Last summer 9.6% employees of Buckingham Palace came from ethnic minority backgrounds. 13% of the UK's population have an ethnic minority background. 10% of the MPs in the House of Commons and 7.3% MPs in the House of Lords have an ethnic minority background.

That figure does not say where those minorities work within BP.  Are they working in the kitchens, stables, and gardens or are they working more white collar positions in offices?

[Makai]

25 minutes ago, Avaleigh said:

In terms of the staff at Buckingham Palace, the numbers have been increasing each year. They haven't hit their targeted goals, but they've pledged to do better and have shown improvement in this area. It isn't perfect yet, but they're making the effort.

They do deserve credit for that but they are still failing to clear a very low bar after being slow to act. I would really be curious to see how those percentages breakdown as far as types of jobs. 

Completely setting aside whether or not what Harry and Meghan are saying is the truth, I feel, the BRF as done a poor job of handling the optics around the situation and the reaction to the balcony is an extension. They have largely been defensive when responding to what Harry and Meghan are saying rather than tackling the underlying problem head on. William responding by saying the family isn’t racist is meaningless and dismissive of real concerns. 

It is unrealistic to think they are going to overhaul the staff immediately for a lot of reasons but they could, and in my opinion should, reach out to community leaders to help with education and recruitment. Instead it often feels like they are being lip service and putting on displays to prove they are inclusive. Having more diversity seen at the coronation immediately followed by the balcony just drives that point home that they seem unwilling to to seriously address what is one of their biggest downfalls. 

[ancslove]

A lot of outreach at the community level is done through Charles’ Prince’s Trust, but that’s not necessarily going to give deserving people from diverse backgrounds and ethnicities jobs at a palace.  I think the startlingly low pay is a big part of the problem, deterring people who might otherwise want a paycheck or similar position but don’t have strong feelings about the monarchy.  Raising salaries would attract and keep people of different backgrounds and experiences.

[MissLucas]

There's no official listing who works where for security reasons. The Royal family homepage has a section dedicated to staff including pictures and short portraits of individuals by first name only. Of course these are handpicked. Bottom line is that we don't have solid numbers to make sweeping statements one way or the other.

I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt but YMMV.

Edited May 10 by MissLucas

[merylinkid]

Yeah people from "diverse" backgrounds can't always AFFORD to take low paying jobs.   Even for the prestige and knowing it will mean higher paid jobs later on.   Kinda like book publishing.   For SOME ODD reason, the field only attracts rich white kids who can afford to work for poverty wages in NYC.   Same thing.   Gee I wonder why someone can't take a job for 20K pounds a year in London?

[Ohiopirate02]

3 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

Yeah people from "diverse" backgrounds can't always AFFORD to take low paying jobs.   Even for the prestige and knowing it will mean higher paid jobs later on.   Kinda like book publishing.   For SOME ODD reason, the field only attracts rich white kids who can afford to work for poverty wages in NYC.   Same thing.   Gee I wonder why someone can't take a job for 20K pounds a year in London?

I do know that some industries that actually care about making their workforce diverse do provide housing for their staff.  Which is something The Firm could do if they really wanted to attract a more diverse pool of applicants for the office jobs.  They already offer apartments to select staff as it is.

[PRgal]

22 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

Yeah people from "diverse" backgrounds can't always AFFORD to take low paying jobs.   Even for the prestige and knowing it will mean higher paid jobs later on.   Kinda like book publishing.   For SOME ODD reason, the field only attracts rich white kids who can afford to work for poverty wages in NYC.   Same thing.   Gee I wonder why someone can't take a job for 20K pounds a year in London?

You mean rich kids.  By saying "rich white kids," you're implying that non-white "kids" never come from wealthy backgrounds.  

[Jane Tuesday]

Did something get deleted? I went back through the thread and can't figure out what y'all are talking about, but it sounds interesting! 

The low wages for palace staff definitely hinders their ability to recruit anyone who isn't independently wealthy regardless of race or ethnicity. I remember seeing a role with the BRF advertised in my field that paid less than half what I make in rural America. There's no way anyone could live independently in London for that wage. 

[Ohiopirate02]

12 minutes ago, Jane Tuesday said:

Did something get deleted? I went back through the thread and can't figure out what y'all are talking about, but it sounds interesting! 

The low wages for palace staff definitely hinders their ability to recruit anyone who isn't independently wealthy regardless of race or ethnicity. I remember seeing a role with the BRF advertised in my field that paid less than half what I make in rural America. There's no way anyone could live independently in London for that wage. 

Are you by chance a librarian or an archivist? Because I remember the librarian Facebook group I belong to having a field day a few years ago when Her Majesty was looking for a new archivist (or librarian, I can't remember which one. Or it might have been a museum curator, there's a lot of overlap between all three fields). The pay that was offered was downright laughable when you read the education requirements and work experience needed to do the job.  It was so low you were really paying them for the privilege of laboring on their behalf.

[Jane Tuesday]

Nope, it was a marketing position. :)

[merylinkid]

6 hours ago, PRgal said:

You mean rich kids.  By saying "rich white kids," you're implying that non-white "kids" never come from wealthy backgrounds.  

No, I meant rich white kids.   Because we are talking about the reason for lack of diversity.   In general the only people who can afford to take low paying but prestigious jobs are rich white kids.   

[Bethany]

On 5/1/2023 at 5:19 PM, ancslove said:

Even that could be just rising above the old discord between her and Charles/William/Harry, not about anything new.  But this keeps her name in the news and reminds everyone of who she is, which is good for her since I believe she still has one more book in her publishing contract.

I wonder what the subject of the book will be as according to the Mail on Sunday:

Angela Kelly banned from sharing royal secrets

Quote

The King has struck a deal with the late Queen’s dresser banning her from sharing Royal secrets in exchange for a new life in the North. Angela Kelly, one of the late Queen’s closest confidantes, has been allowed to choose a new grace-and-favour home after being forced to move out of the Windsor estate. But The Mail on Sunday understands that a senior Palace aide acting for the King presented Ms Kelly with a new NDA – non disclosure agreement – to sign as part of the deal.

A well-placed source dubbed the agreement a ‘gagging order’ that would make future earnings based on public revelations about the Royal family difficult. Under the terms of the agreement, Ms Kelly is prevented from using the words ‘King’ and ‘Palace’ for commercial purposes.

 

[merylinkid]

"Queen" and "Buckingham" are apparently okay.   I doubt she was going to spill the tea.   Her previous books were about clothes and jewels with some personal notes.   But I don't there was anything TOO personal.  Her next book will probably be the same.  Maybe personal reflections on what it was like to dress the Queen and then deal with her death.  

[BloomsburyRez]

That’s the thing they were very close, she was one of the Queen’s closest confidants. She moved in during lockdown and remained in residence until the Queen’s death. She absolutely knows how the Queen felt about everyone including children and grandchildren. It’s doubtful that she will actually say anything.

On that note the Queen did keep a journal since she was young.  I really hope she left it in her daughter’s care with notes on what to publish and what not. Not that it would have any family secrets but maybe a dash of snark here and there on some of the people she met along the way. Because she was so young when she became Queen and it coincided with air travel it’s estimated she met more influential people in history then anyone who has previously lived.

[Zella]

My guess is the queen likely asked for her journal to be destroyed, even if there was nothing particularly juicy in there. I know we joke about Anne being the royal assassin, but I can totally see her and her mother having had a conversation that's some variation of "Burn it when I die!" and Anne complying. 

[Jane Tuesday]

I can easily see that.

A friend of my dad's who served in WWII... when he got home, he and his wife burned all their letters to each other. He basically said nobody needed to read them but the two of them. My parents have talked about doing the same with their letters from when my dad was overseas. I've read letters my dad got in Vietnam from my grandpa and others, but I don't think I'd want to read my parents' letters anyway. My eyes! LOL

It largely depends on the journal, though. My mom's journal is literally a catalog of the things she did that day. Just the facts, not her feelings. Anybody can pick it up and read it. If the Queen's journal is similar, I'd see no reason for it to be destroyed, but also probably no reason to read it! 

Edited May 25 by Jane Tuesday

[Llywela]

45 minutes ago, Jane Tuesday said:

I can easily see that.

A friend of my dad's who served in WWII... when he got home, he and his wife burned all their letters to each other. He basically said nobody needed to read them but the two of them. My parents have talked about doing the same with their letters from when my dad was overseas. I've read letters my dad got in Vietnam from my grandpa and others, but I don't think I'd want to read my parents' letters anyway. My eyes! LOL

It largely depends on the journal, though. My mom's journal is literally a catalog of the things she did that day. Just the facts, not her feelings. Anybody can pick it up and read it. If the Queen's journal is similar, I'd see no reason for it to be destroyed, but also probably no reason to read it! 

Reminds me of a scene in the costume drama Cranford, where Miss Mattie sat burning old correspondence, once her family was all gone and she was the only one left. Didn't want anyone else to read their private letters, so she got them all out, read each one for a final time, and then burned them. I can understand the sentiment behind that action.

But on the other hand, my mother has a box full of old postcards that her grandfather collected from his earliest childhood, including a large number of postcards his father sent home during the four years he was away fighting in WWI. It is private correspondence between a father and his teenage son - sometimes mundane, sometimes really touching - and they are both long gone now, but the survival of those postcards keeps their memory alive. We treasure them and would hate for anything to happen to them.

And correspondence/journals from the time are an invaluable resource for historians, they provide so much insight.

So I can see both sides.

As far as the Queen and Angela Kelly go (and others who have got themselves into trouble writing about the BRF), today's 'too personal/confidential to be seen' is tomorrow's primary source for historians to argue over!

Edited May 25 by Llywela

[merylinkid]

6 hours ago, Zella said:

My guess is the queen likely asked for her journal to be destroyed, even if there was nothing particularly juicy in there. I know we joke about Anne being the royal assassin, but I can totally see her and her mother having had a conversation that's some variation of "Burn it when I die!" and Anne complying. 

That's exactly what happened with the Queen Mother's papers.   She had told given orders that upon her death, burn them.   So a lot of history went up in flames.

As someone working with a lot of civil war diaries now, this breaks my heart.   Someday these papers will be important.   Shove them in the vault for 50 years if you must, but do not destroy what can give really valuable insight in what it was like to reign through so much change.   Going from an Empire to head of a Commonwealth.   Rebuilding after the war.   The riots of the 80s.   Going from hearing about her father's death via a telephone call, to the internet age.   So much.   

[Zella]

5 hours ago, merylinkid said:

As someone working with a lot of civil war diaries now, this breaks my heart. 

Agreed! I totally understand the privacy concerns, but as someone who studied history in college, I love seeing people's published diaries and letters and always am saddened to hear when they're destroyed.  

My family still really cherishes the last letter my great-grandfather wrote before being KIA during WWII. It's pretty haunting. In it, he basically said he knew he was dying tomorrow, and he was at peace with it. 

Edited May 25 by Zella

[Bethany]

The extraordinary trump card held by the late Queen's dresser: Angela Kelly has letter from Elizabeth II giving her express approval to publish THREE books, friends claim, after her 'personal' and second memoir 'led King Charles to insist she sign an NDA'

Quote

But sources close to Ms Kelly reveal today that the docker's daughter from Liverpool, who came to be one of the most powerful courtiers at Buckingham Palace, had an all-important written go-ahead from the late Queen.

They speculate that the private document could even take precedence over the NDA.

A source said: 'It's certainly a formidable weapon in her arsenal to have a letter like that from Queen Elizabeth II in her possession. It's quite something because it seems she is protecting her favoured assistant from beyond the grave. It is pretty important because it includes the Queen's wishes, and no one would want to ignore those.'

I am curious who these "friends" and "sources" are and are they leaking these droplets of information at Kelly's request.  What more does she want from the King if what she's doing is trying to buy her silence?  Or is she just wanting to be a thorn in the side of someone she knows dislikes her?