By Admin Comment Closed

SGUK Ep 160

The Human Cost of the Crown: When Health is a Secret Weapon

 

Introduction

Hello Ivy here.

This 2nd part of our series of 4 explores behind the façade when The Firm forgets its own. This week , we examine what happens when health – particularly visible, chronic health conditions – is hidden, downplayed, or outright denied by the institution known as The Firm.

We are not talking about privacy.  We are talking about patterns: patterns where silence becomes a tool of control, and vulnerability is treated as a liability. If  any workplace, an unacknowledged health issue would raise red flags for Human Resources, for occupational health, even for safeguarding.  In The Firm, however, it is often spun as dignity – or not spoken about at all.

Just as we did last week, this episode will not name names – because it is not necessary.  The facts are visible. Plenty of public footage available, so those who want to see will recognise what they see; with each view, their opinion is strengthened. Silence is louder than any press release.

The Firm as a Workplace

Like any business, there are legal obligations – Health and Safety, Reasonable Adjustments and Disclosure.

Every time the British Royal Family is metaphorically wheeled out, the evidence is there for anyone who cares to see, to see the crumbling of this institution, but nothing is ever said, and the Royal Family do as they always do, pick and choose when to be silent about certain things, yet on so many occasions, when they want a certain piece of information to be considered as news to the public at large, the official line of public information is delivered via the Royal Rota or pals of the members of The Firm, who wish to keep on the right side of the Monarch and family.  If questioned or queried in any way, the Monarchy will deny any knowledge, and they will encourage Royal Experts to all come out from under their stones, and all without fail repeat the mantra they have been given to push, and always in the supposed off the cuff statement or discussion, or chat on a tv morning show, will all at some point use the exact same words or phrases in an effort to deflect or divert attention to something completely different.  It is so beyond the days when this type of mass psychosis is used to brainwash the population to ignore what their eyes have seen, and believe the Royal Experts, or worse the Royal Reporters treating the public like mushrooms who need feeding with something.  The disrespect is off the scale.

The Implications of Neglecting Safeguarding Measures

I gave an overview of the Safeguarding framework and the purpose of it was meant to be used for. In the case of The Firm, it is very important to consider the implications of neglecting Safeguarding measures, particularly for younger Royals raised under strict expectations.  The evidence is there that these young children struggle through a regime of rules and limited flexibility, no independent thought allowed, and it is reinforced from an early age that they adhere to a set of regulations and rules, out of duty.

The evidence is there in abundance that these troubled, traumatised children grow into traumatised and troubled adults, who are weighed down with even more instructions on how to behave and how not to behave.  The higher up the line of succession they move, the risk grows with them.  The evidence of damaged people within the current Royal Family is clear to see, for those who want to see.  The Royalists out there refuse to believe that the BRF would ever do such a thing, but they also say “duty is duty” and from that point they switch off the alarm bells ringing in their heads, and all of them behave like an Ostrich.

Real Life Case Studies of Safeguarding Failures in Royal History.

Throughout history, various members of the UK Royal family have experienced issues that might be considered safeguarding matters, often handled discretely due to the nature of the Monarchy and the privacy it maintains.  Here are a few examples:-

  • King George III : Known for suffering from what was likely a mental illness, possibly bipolar disorder. He experienced several episodes of illness that led to his eventual seclusion later in life.  His condition was not fully understood at the time and was managed privately within the Royal Family.
  • King Edward VIII: His abdication in 1936 to marry Wallis Simpson, an American divorcee, created a constitutional crisis. His decision was largely influenced by personal relationships rather than explicit safeguarding issues, but it was a matter largely dealt with behind closed doors within the Royal Family and the government.
  • Prince John: The youngest son of King George V and Queen Mary, Prince John suffered from epilepsy and possible learning disabilities. He lived much of his life away from the public eye at Wood Farm on the Sandringham estate, highlighting the era’s approach to managing such conditions privately.
  • King Henry VI: known for his bouts of mental illness. Henry VI’s reign was marked by periods of incapacity, leaving the governance of the Kingdom to others.  While not a safeguarding issue in the modern sense, his condition required careful management by those around him.

These examples underscore a historical tendency to manage certain personal and health-related matters within the confines of The Royal Family and its advisors, often keeping the full extent of these issues away from public scrutiny.  This historical context shows how approaches to mental health and safeguarding have evolved over time – unless you are born into the UK Royal Family.

We have evidence in full sight on a regular basis, and hours and hours of footage over the years, but the current UK family insist on continuing with “nothing to see here” mantra, regardless of the impact and risks on the individuals concerned, or the impact on the nation. Leaders need to be required to adhere to the Law of the Land, just like everyone else.  The freedom to do what Royal Family want to do and when, is not working out for them.  The evidence is there in front of the nation. The patterns are there.  The conditions for various members are worsening, and it is without doubt a safeguarding issue.  One day it will be imposed for the well being of future generations, if a Monarchy is still in existence at that time.

 

Two Sample  Frameworks That Would be Useful for the Powers That be to Consider

The Safeguarding Framework (which I outlined last week, and is contained in the Reference Sources.

  • Explore key principles of safeguarding that should be implemented in any organisation, including risk assessments and protective measures.

 

  • Children’s Rights Framework. Consider the significance of children’s rights within the context of Royal life and the responsibilities of the Monarchy.

 

  • Children born into a role. No idea from being an infant whether or not that child is going to be competent or interested in the role.
  • The Heir brought up to believe that he/she is superior to everyone else, including siblings.
  • The Whipping Boy/Girl role is abusive. Child deliberately brought into the world to be the footstool for the Heir.  No independent thought allowed, if it in any way takes attention away from the Heir.
  • Any wrong doing by the Heir, is officially blamed on the Spare – ie the Whipping Boy/Girl. Another Royal tradition that has gone on for centuries and no one has reached common sense yet to see the damage this does to a child, who then grows up to be a damaged adult.  They are scattered around the current Royal Family, and because there are so many of them now, it all obviously looks normal to them – business as usual.
  • The practices would be considered child abuse if they occurred outside palace gates, and the fact that it is ignored inside palace gates is a travesty, and to add salt to injury, UK taxpayers pay for it to take place.
  • UK taxpayers pay to have modern day Master and Slave structures behind palace gates, and the same taxpayers ignore the system, because it is all about duty and it makes the country look good that we have a Monarchy family. I beg to differ.

 

Why Hiding all These Health Issues is a Huge Cause for Concern

  • Hiding health challenges implies weakness, which reinforces stigma.
  • The silence also creates an unsafe precedent for anyone working within or around that structure.

Contrast With Other Public Figures

Non-royal public figures who have been open or transparent about their health issues. Here are a few examples of famous people who have publicly discussed their health conditions, contrasting with those who might hide or misrepresent them:

  1. Lady Gaga: She has been open about her battle with fibromyalgia and discussed how it affects her daily life and ability to perform. Her transparency has helped raise awareness about the condition.
  2. Selena Gomez: She has spoken candidly about her lupus diagnosis, including undergoing chemotherapy and a kidney transplant. Her openness has brought attention to lupus and organ donation.
  3. Demi Lovato: Lovato has been vocal about her struggles with mental health, addiction, and eating disorders. Sharing her story has contributed to reducing stigma and promoting mental health awareness.
  4. Michael J. Fox: Known for his openness about living with Parkinson’s disease, Fox has used his platform to advocate for research and educate the public about the condition.
  5. Venus Williams: She has publicly discussed her experience with Sjögren’s syndrome, an autoimmune disease, and the challenges it brought to her tennis career. Her story has highlighted the importance of managing chronic illnesses.

 

These individuals contrast with those who might choose to keep their health conditions private or misrepresent them, which can lead to a lack of awareness or misunderstandings about certain illnesses. Important to consider the implications of such honesty and transparency, as well as the potential consequences when health conditions are hidden or misrepresented. This can lead to a broader discussion on the importance of open dialogue about health issues and the impact it can have on societal perceptions and support systems.

 

Legal Thoughts

  • UK Equality Act 2010
  • Workplace Adjustments
  • Transparency expectations for publicly funded institutions

 

NOTE:

  • When silence is strategic, it becomes structural, and when that structure is built on hiding pain or need, the cost isn’t just internal – it is cultural.

 

Important Points to Take Away With You as Part of This Conclusion:-

  • When health is hidden, power is protected
  • You cannot fix what you refuse to admit exists
  • If it were any other workplace, lawyers would be involved
  • Not every disappearance is a mystery – some are policy
  • Behind the gold and glitter, is an HR nightmare

 

Conclusion

As we conclude today’s episode, let’s take a moment to reflect on what history teaches us—not just about those who wore crowns, but about the systems built around them. We’ve seen how the concealment of illness, whether physical or mental, was often cloaked in silence. We’ve seen how silence became a strategy. But when silence is institutionalised, safeguarding becomes impossible.

In today’s world, we have better language. We talk about wellbeing, duty of care, accountability. But language means little without action. Safeguarding is not weakness—it is wisdom. Transparency is not a threat—it is a foundation.

The monarchy—and the structures tied to it—must evolve. Those who resist transparency only strengthen the case for reform. Not because of disrespect, but because of progress.

As I prepare to return next week with Part 3 of this 4-part series, we’ll begin to explore modern examples. We’ll look at the systems that shape public narratives and how the cost of silence today—on mental health, safeguarding, institutional accountability—still falls hardest on the most vulnerable.

Thank you for staying with me, for listening, and for thinking deeply. These are not easy conversations. But change rarely comes from ease—it comes from courage.

I invite you to reflect, to question, to discuss. And above all, to advocate for a world where no institution, no matter how historic, is above the moral and legal responsibility to protect.”

 

Closing Segment:

As we close this episode, I want to return to one clear idea:

Silence is not always neutral.
Sometimes, silence protects power — not people.

In workplaces around the world, leaders are held to account. There are policies, procedures, audits, and consequences. But when power wears a crown, when tradition becomes a shield, accountability gets rewritten as “privacy,” and scrutiny is painted as “disrespect.”

That’s not protection. That’s misdirection.

Let’s be clear:
If a public institution operates behind closed doors, its mistakes stay hidden.
If no one speaks up for the vulnerable, the cycle repeats.

We are not here to pry. We are here to ask:

  • Why is safeguarding optional when the title is hereditary?
  • Why are taxpayer-funded roles exempt from transparency?
  • Why are those born into privilege treated as victims when held to the standards everyone else must meet?

Health is not a political tool.
Mental wellbeing is not a convenient deflection.
These are human rights issues.

And yet, the deeper issue remains:
The monarchy is still positioned above the very systems meant to check its power.
Law, church, military, honours, press — all orbit the crown.
And while that remains the case, reform is always one step behind tradition.

This podcast, and the voices we bring into it, are here to say: Enough.

We remember those who were silenced.
We speak for those who were erased.
And we challenge the structures that allowed it to happen — not just once, but repeatedly.

Thank you for listening.

Until next time — stay curious, stay compassionate, and never stop asking why some truths are treated like threats.

 

Ivy Barrow

25th May 2025

REFERENCE SOURCES TO BE ADDED