By Admin Comment Closed

The Lost Souls of Windsor

 

Backwards Britain: Why It’s Time to Abolish the Monarchy | The National Interest

A direct quote from an article published in March 2020 in a publication called In The National Interest.

“The United Kingdom has more than its fair share of political problems. Three and a half years of acrimonious debate over the European Question—exacerbated by two rancorous general election campaigns—has left Britain with deep social and political divides. The 48 percent who voted to remain inside the European Union (EU) are understandably resentful at the 52 percent who are jubilant at now having left. It sometimes seems as though the very soul of Britain is up for grabs. Will it be an open or closed society? Cosmopolitan or intolerant? Internationalist or introverted?”

Moving outside of the quote, my personal opinion and answers to that last question is as follows:- It is becoming increasingly a closed society; it is definitely an intolerant one, when government reports and statutes contain such as a phrase of “creating a hostile environment” to deter ‘certain’ people to come to the UK seeking residence, and only the UK could enforce removal of people who were invited to the UK by the government, in the 1950s to do the work that English people did not want to do, eg work in the health service, drive London transport vehicles, working in places with hazardous condition to health, and using forceful repatriation back to the Caribbean because they are no longer wanted here – whatever the official reasons are.  Most of the government created official documentation confirming their permission to stay in the UK and that they were British Citizens, have officially been accidently destroyed, so next to know records exist.  Those who came as babies or young children with their parents, have no such documentation, hence the monthly forced repatriation to the Caribbean.  Let’s not forget white refugees seeking asylum in the UK are provided with an online visa process and are welcomed into all corners of the UK.  UK residents are paid money by the government every month, for opening up their homes to these white refugees.  I have no problem with the process, it is what those people deserve, however, all black people escaping conflict have had no such system.  For them, there is no online visa application process, hence the illegal travel by dangerous gangs on unsuitable boats try to come to the UK, land on its shores if they are lucky and they hope that no matter how long it takes, they are safer than the places they have escaped from.  The UK Government answer to the black refugees is to arrange flights to Rwanda where they will be processed at some point.  Who knows when.  A place that is known for being inherently dangerous and where Human Rights is not a doctrine that is followed by many in authority there.  The UK sees it as black people sorting out black people, and it is not UK problem about whether or not there is danger.  One disappointing aspect about all of this, is that too many residents of the UK are comfortable with it.  White refugees are welcomed, and many are more than eager to open up their homes to people in distress for payment.  There was never any such offer made to black refugees since time began.

There is an exception to the treatment of white immigrants , albeit they were not refugees, but I am sure that the some aspects of this Rwanda experience is familiar to them too.  Eastern Europeans have worked in the UK for at least two decades, and were employed heavily in the National Health Service as Doctors and Nurses.  Since 2016, the regulations about whether they can work in the UK has changed and the payments required for Visa and work permits to come here have changed a lot.  It is very very costly to come here and work, and if those doctors and nurses wished to bring their family with them at some point, as most of the doctors for example would be here for a few years on contract.  The Brexit vote made it difficult for those who were here to afford to stay, and the implications for their families and those with children in schools etc., and all the uncertainty as to how long they would be able to carry on from month to month etc, led to a massive exodus of highly trained and skilled individuals.  Nursing staff are struggling, and many have left or are due to leave the profession.  Applications for European nurses to come to the UK were 80% down at one point, and very little as changed in that figure.  Most of the Doctors and Nurses have returned to Europe, and many have found employment in Canada and in the USA.  The UK Government stands by its decisions, and the NHS has staff on its knees trying to keep a service going, and made worse by Covid these last two years. 

There is a growing feeling of not being wanted, if you are a person of colour.  No one is interested in where you were born, what you have done in terms of work and putting something back each day, and those like myself who was born here, are made to feel in increasing circles of UK society the emergence of the hostile environment. We have seen the changes in the way the UK treats people of colour from our childhood to now, and it has definitely become worse since the Brexit vote in 2016.   To that end, my answer to the last question, yes the UK is becoming more and more an intolerant society, but it is important to note, the intolerance is not based on class alone,  but on ethnicity first.  E.g. The Monarchy is not as popular as it once was, but to a degree some people worry about putting food on their own table, than lose sleep over what the Royals are doing. There is still this feeling of deference to the Royals, and they therefore should not be criticised too much.  That changed the moment a person of colour entered the Royal space.  Groups of people have been losing their minds that a black woman has entered a hallowed and protected space in their mind, and the UK media started writing articles that were at times explicitly racist and then moved into writing race hate baiting type articles, which encouraged some people who have made a full time occupation to keep Royal blood clear. One UK Queen’s Council publicly criticised the Royal Reporters in the UK Tabloid press for continuously writing articles containing “undertones of racism” in them.  One of those Royal Reporters who has been particularly negative about The Duchess of Sussex, but openly praising The Duchess of Cambridge (where he previously was very critical of her lack of work ethic years ago) responded publicly to the QC stating that “you of all people should know that using undertones of racism is not against the law.”  Need I say more.  That is the environment that the UK operates in now, at the top end of society, and the climate is such that most do not hide their views, they just choose their words carefully.

Thankfully in terms of the BRF the majority of the population who support this 1000 year old institution are mainly in the over 65 age group.  That is a problem for the BRF, because the systems currently in place ensure that they are protected to a degree, no matter what they do, but the younger generation do not feel that way.  Prince Charles is not as popular as he is told by Royal sycophants who are employed to smooth the Royal Family fragile egos every day.  He is soon to find out, that despite what his mother may have told him, including giving permission for his wife to be referred to as Queen Consort when Charles accedes the throne, is far from popular with the majority of the population under 65.  As for Prince William, he of all the Royals, very much fits the title of this podcast.  He is like a lost soul, waiting for people to die, so that he can sit on a throne he has been told since birth, he will do one day, and be called a King, and the ego will be stroked every waking moment. 

What he needs to remember is, the age group of people who enjoy having a Royal family as a figurehead of stability and wealth, are mainly over the age of 65, therefore at whatever year Prince William gets to sit on this apparent golden chair, many of that age group will not be here, and others close to leaving it.  Support for any Monarchy in the UK is much lower in the below 65 and is almost non existent in Prince William’s age group now, let alone the younger age groups to come in that age range.

The Monarchy and the Nation is on very fragile ground.  The top tier of society eg Monarchy, Government, UK Media (written and televised) Aristocracy and Police are all there to protect each of the other groups.  Particularly Monarchy and the Government – The House of Lords in particular.  A very unhealthy revolving door takes place between the latter two groups mentioned and it is slowly but surely being seen for what it is.  In the meantime, those two entities in particular are vested in ensuring the other remains in place.  The Queen’s family are lost in the system, but know that they have to look like they are doing something of use, or enough use to the UK.  Much of the so called confidence is based on centuries of deference to a Royal Family, whilst at the same time (in modern period at least) the Monarchy represents stability and perceived abundance to the outside world. Those people are disillusioned and most people outside of the UK have limited interest in Royalty and in terms of the UK Monarchy, the Queen is known and respected more so than anything because of her age and her longevity on the throne. None of them can give an accurate answer as to what has she done for the UK. Times have changed and there is less support for a family representing opulence and being tied to the throne, and for this system to continue to be passed on automatically to subsequent children.  No thought about whether or how the country would benefit, and with zero concern about the competence and experience of the person automatically slotted into the position.

Senior Royals seem to jump on the latest fad for a particular week, and ensure that cameras are there to capture their words of wisdom, written by someone else anyway, to show how in touch they are with their people, and that they care etc., and then they return to one of their multiple homes, all paid for and maintained by the UK taxpayer.  If you study the Government and the Royals closely, you will see how the questions asked at the beginning apply to the linkage between the two groups.  There is no attempt to hide the chain that binds the two.  It is in plain sight and the UK public are meant to look away and not to concern themselves with anything that they see or might see as being problematic in the future.  Jobs are found for each other, from both groups.  Remember the revolving door?  So yes, the answers to those questions asked at the beginning are in the negative aspects for both groups.  They mirror each other, and that in itself should be of concern to right thinking people. Ie with a conscience, not their political leaning.  A reminder of the questions:- Will it be an open or closed society? Cosmopolitan or intolerant? Internationalist or introverted?

“How the British choose to associate with their European neighbours—and how they choose not to—will go a long way toward providing answers to these questions. But there is another relationship that says more about Britain’s national character than EU membership ever will—that is, Britain’s relationship with its monarchy. As Britons ponder what sort of future they want for their country, they would do well to consider abolishing this corrosive and anachronistic institution.

The most offensive feature of monarchy, of course, is that it cements privilege at the top of state and society. By definition, royalty is an advertisement that “pedigree” still matters in Britain—which, of course, it does even in contexts far removed from royal life. Abolishing the monarchy would not erase Britain’s class divide overnight, but a republican form of government would at least be able to lay claim to the principles of equality and democracy.

Monarchy, on the other hand, precludes equality even as a pretence. There is nothing remotely egalitarian about a system that guarantees, by law, that one family will receive taxpayer-funded grants, literal palaces in which to live, special protections from criminal justice, barely disguised political influence, and the deference of elected politicians. The whole point is that some people are born different—and better—than others. This is a repugnant doctrine.

The state-sponsored extravagance of royalty would be bad enough if members of the Royal Family could be trusted to set a serene example for “ordinary” people to follow. It is made much worse by the fact that, in reality, the royals behave badly. As the great constitutional theorist Walter Bagehot once wrote, “a constitutional prince is the man who is most tempted to pleasure, and the least forced to business.” After all, an idle mind is the devil’s playground—and members of the Royal Family are idle as an occupation.

To be sure, senior royals may choose to devote their entire lives to noble acts of charitable work. But they might equally choose not to. And whenever a royal misdeed is committed, it is a fact of modern life that such news will be plastered all over the front pages of tabloid newspapers. At best, the House of Windsor is a group of people afflicted with the usual flaws. More likely, it is an institution that predisposes its members to ill behaviour.

The British are thus left with the worst of both worlds—a privileged coterie of royals who use their money and influence not to set a high example but to embarrass the country and provide endless fodder for gossip magazines.

This will only get worse when Queen Elizabeth II dies, and Prince Charles accedes to the throne. For years, it has been relatively easy for the press to show deference to an elderly lady. It will be much harder to respect a man who once likened himself to a female hygiene product, talks to his plants, has interfered in official government business, and is generally regarded as a figure of fun. Charles I was beheaded for going to war against his own people. Charles III won’t be treated quite so harshly, but he might well be forced to abdicate under the weight of relentless mockery.

Consider the popular response to the announcement from the Duke and Duchess of Sussex that the pair would like to step back from royal duties, relocate their family to North America, and pursue financial independence. The initial reaction was one of surprise and indignation—sheer disbelief that Harry and Meghan should want to retreat from public life and deny the British people their rightful window into the couple’s everyday lives. The umbrage was particularly acute given that the public purse had just doled out £2.4 million refurbishing the Sussex’s residence, Frogmore Cottage, which sits on the grounds of Windsor Castle.” Money which was paid back in full as soon as they officially stepped back.  Note, no one else in the Royal family pays for refurbishment of their dwelling and most pay next to no rent, in some cases a few don’t even pay a token rent.  Recently The Sussexes renewed the lease on Frogmore Cottage and now have arranged to pay full market rent for the property.  A property that they will spend at most, a few days in a year.  I have no doubt that The Sussexes did this to stop the excuse to add the rental of the cottage to the list of daily topics chosen from to write negative articles every single day.

The number of careers that have developed from writing hate filled articles about Meghan and Harry every day, or appearing in daily tv gossip programmes to talk about Harry and Meghan, one could easily believe the The Sussexes were still working Royals.  It is like there are a growing number of people, who would have no career, or definitely not one that earns the kind of money they make now by inciting hatred and negativity, who would have no purpose worthy of commenting to others on, if Meghan and Harry were not available.  The Sussex family may have stepped back from senior Working Royal roles, and now reside on another continent, but there are media people who have become high profile as a result of the articles they write and the interviews they give talking about a couple who the UK no longer funds.  It makes no sense at all.  So when I say that there are established Royals in existence, that attract very little interest and therefore very little money, it does not take long for someone to stand back and analyse the risk to the Institution by the actions of certain professions in the UK.  One of the societal groups I mentioned earlier in this podcast (media – televised and printed) are leading the way in increasing activity around the Sussexes, breaching some Human Rights law in the process, whilst at the same time, the owners of the newspapers and the TV networks, are making a case at the same time to retain a Monarchy.  A Monarchy that they barely write about in comparison to the couple that they officially said that they would not cover from April 2020.

Is it any wonder, that there are sections of the UK who say they are tired of hearing and reading about The Sussexes.  On the one hand the media overkill on keeping the Sussex names in 90% if not more of the daily headlines, is on the one hand working.  It creates additional negativity towards the couple, but what they fail to understand by admitting that there is more interest in the Sussexes than the rest of the Royals combined, then they are openly proving that the actual Royal family are becoming irrelevant and obsolete. People in the UK as well as people outside of the UK, are just not interested in UK Monarchy.  The Queen is known and respected, but when she is gone, there is a huge problem brewing that the UK Media are pretending is not there, and worse, they have been a major part for this state of affairs.

If the UK Royal Family thought that they had relevance before, they surely know now, that their future is not definite and whatever it is they are selling as service, is unclear and the people who have no say in the finance taken from their taxes to pay for a Royal Family are increasingly wondering what the Royals actually do.  It is mainly the over 65s who act with deference to the Royals, as the family is chosen by a God, and that for this reason, they should be adored and protected, in conjunction it gives the perceived impression to the world at large, that the UK is doing more than fine going it alone in so many things, and the Monarchy represent opulence and high society and apparently gives the UK a sense of stability.

“Having accepted money from the public purse, the argument went, there could be no question of the Sussexes pursuing an independent life. The implied assumption was that the British taxpayer had purchased a controlling stake in the lives of Harry and Meghan; it was not for the Sussexes to make decisions for their own family!”

“This was a telling insight into how the British people view their relationship with the Royal Family—not much dulled by the fact that, in the end, the Sussexes were “allowed” to retreat from their public duties after agreeing to an exit plan with other senior royals. In a normal society, anyone should be free to plot their own course; nobody’s life ought to be subject to public control. But in monarchical Britain, oppressive social expectation is not unusual. Abandoning one’s station is to be frowned upon, whether rich or poor.

For a long time, it was possible to argue that the monarchy should be retained because abolition would involve major constitutional upheaval. But leaving the EU has already opened the door to “root and branch” reform of how Britain governs itself. Even Scottish independence and Irish unification are now realistic prospects—foreshadowing, perhaps, the breakup of the British state. In this context, abolishing the monarchy alongside other constitutional reforms can be seen to make a great deal of sense, especially if the UK is to fragment into two or more entities.

Exiting the EU was supposed to presage the emergence of a Global Britain—confident, ambitious, cultured, and “cool.” But as the Second Elizabethan Era draws to a close, it is now painfully clear that some Britons have their gazes fixed inward and backward. There is a risk of atrophy. To push Britain forward, the country ought to consider ditching its heaviest anchor to a past best left behind. What better way to “take back control” than to become a republic?”

Peter Harris is an assistant professor of political science at Colorado State University. You can follow him on Twitter:@ipeterharris.

Is it any wonder then, that the couple that the Royals and their media Associates tried their best to destroy this couple whilst they were resident in the UK, and then to add to Royal woes, the couple escaped from this prison like organisation, and thrived despite the obstacles thrown or places their way by the Royal family members themselves.  Practices that have worked over their 1000 year history, were not working now.  Is it any wonder that the Royal family left behind in the UK, who now technically had the spotlight that they wanted, were not fairing too well, and still are not reversing the trend.  As a company like structure, The Firm is looking decidedly shaky and its ‘value’ is reducing by the day.  It is obvious to me that certainly the senior Royals are not quite sure what they can do at the moment, to improve things.  There is a feeling of there will be some element of change when the Queen passes, but in reality, all of them just give the impression of treading water, whilst they wait for the Queen to pass.  What an existence.  What a way to live.  In the interim, the relatives are all acting like crabs in a bucket, crawling over each other to appear like the saviour of the Monarchy, and they do not mind who they crawl over to switch on their light so that the right and important people notice them standing out from the others.

It seems like they have lost their identity as an institution.  It seems they are unsure what else they can do to bring it back on stream, so that things could be just as it used to be, with a little tweaking here and there, and basically go back to do next to nothing but performative activity, so that boxes can be ticked and labelled “work engagements” and no one will question them too much about certain things about certain members of the family.  The centuries old playbook is to find a scapegoat, who will be the distraction topic in the media, to take away or to reduce the attention on what other Royals are doing.  That approach is already failing, because like all hereditary monarchies, family members are pitted against each other, in the physical absence of The Sussexes, the high society UK Royal family are throwing each other under the bus now.  In essence the Kensington Palace are seeking high profile relevance and are trying to sell that they are the new and much needed face of UK Monarchy, and that Prince Charles represents an era that has gone by, and that he is apparently involved in one too many financial shady deals it seems.  Strangely that could be said of a few in that family, throughout history, and Kensington Palace should be careful of what they are throwing out there, because I firmly believe that there is much that is equally damaging emanating from KP as there is from Clarence House.  Let the bun fight begin.

I would say that Kensington Palace is and will continue to struggle more to find or carve out a new identity moving forward, because unlike his father Prince Charles, Prince Williams has no accomplishments to his 40 years on this planet to date.  A few things started and not one completed in any measurable value added way.  KP realises that they need to create an identity for the 2nd Heir, but at the moment, the main identity that Prince William seems focussed on is destroying his brother.  He does not seem to be able to beat Prince Harry, neither is able to Harry’s work profile and outcomes and structured projects on the go.  Harry has had what were perceived by the Monarchy itself, a basketful of titles and duties, together with the removal of security and funding when they first left the UK, but the Sussexes have dealt with all that by earning their income, and buying their own home, and hiring a professional, quality, security team.

It seems that Prince William is making a full time job of hunter and prey with regards to his brother and family, and each week that passes by, there is some kind of shady activity that has KP written all over it.   If this is what he thinks is preparing him for Kingship in the near or distant future, someone needs to bite the bullet, and tell him so, regardless of what temperament he display when he hears such guidance.  At the moment, The Cambridges have clearly decided to dress like the Sussexes, try to sound like the Sussexes, but there the poor fakery fails, because everything else is performative activity that no one apart from courtiers and dedicated supporters of the UK Royal family believe.  It actually is producing red flags for me, because it shows a weak person who is being placed in a position of leadership at some point.  It shows a vengeful character, and a volatile one.  It gives off unpredictable emotional swings, particular after each trick fails, with global eyes watching and feeling no sympathy.  Targetting ones brother and his family in dangerous ways is not a selling for a empathetic King, but it is one with a dictatorial style.  Not sure that such a character trait is what will convince the Uk to retain its Monarchy, even if the Monarch is younger.  There are a number of psychological factors that should be explored now, before this Royal train goes off the rails.

Identity Crisis   – As an Individual

My perception is that the majority of the British Royal Family just rattle around in their large homes.  Thinking how to make their day interesting, and if of use to anyone that is a bonus.  Hereditary Monarchy as a structure, sets siblings to be competing with each other from the day they are old enough to understand what being a second fiddle to an older sibling really means.  When the day comes that you understand that you are not allowed to shine brighter than the heir and you are not allowed independent thought, and oh by the way you can never leave. It is your duty to stay as long as the Monarch wants you to, and then you can only live and mix with an approved crowd, approved by the Monarch, including who you marry if you wish to do that.

The experience of what has happened to Meghan The Duchess of Sussex joining that family and all the things that are emerging of deeds and attitudes towards a person of colour walking in places where it seemed to set the Caucasian Royals and their staff into some type of mental turmoil.

One could say that their reaction to a black person entering spaces where it was not allowed by anyone else who resided and/or worked in Crown property, the mental gymnastics and the 1000 year playbook of how to remove someone from your presence if you so wish as a Monarch that they put so much effort into, confident of the desired outcome, then this too confirms the negative aspects of :- open or closed society? Cosmopolitan or intolerant? Internationalist or introverted?

I truly believe that it dislodged concepts and beliefs and value system that have been there for a 100 years, and the family members have not quite got back into their normal ‘groove’  As a result one or two members of the family have yet to get their heads around the current situation, and in my mind they feel lost and confused, and very uncertain of how they will be in the future without the comfort blanket/footstool/ and more than anything whipping boy by his side for as long as he wants him to be there.  Yes I am referring to Prince William.  I think he is deeply unsettled about his position and his future, without the footstool he expected to be around.

Just like organisations who lose their way, and continue to provide services and/or products that less and less people want, but the organisation has convinced themselves that they are part of the fabric of a nation, and they will survive this storm, like they have survived all the others – so individuals also have those same issues to contend with.  In both cases, who they were always told from day one they were, and how people would behave around them, and how people would put them on a pedestal no matter what, and that there will always be Royal staff to do all the heavy lifting for you, and write every note to make it sound like it was a spontaneous idea you had a few days ago etc etc

All of a sudden new things are being asked of them, and the BRF have been found wanting, but due to the invisible contract with their UK media, it is all meant to look like all is ok, everything is in hand, and these are just a few ripples and a few rocks to navigate around, but all will be well.

Just like the businesses who failed to take note of the changes in service demands, the individuals in the Monarchy are in denial about the self inflicted damage that they have done, to an already weakening societal structure in a modern age.  The ongoing treatment of The Sussexes, Meghan in particular will remain a deep and wide stain in this century of British Royal life.  There is now a global audience to The Sussex experience, that has been drawn to the behaviour and the cruelty and law breaking that has gone on in the name of UK tabloid journalism.  The daily stalking and harassment in various forms of this couple and their children has taken on sinister connotations now, and some of those people in the hunter and prey activity have clearly lost their minds, and are in dire need of medical intervention.

This will become clearer, when we briefly look at the loss of identity and its impact on individuals and organisations, and by the end of it, I guarantee that you will pick out the obvious signs for The Firm as well as Senior Royals, one in particular.

What Is Identity?  

Identity involves the experiences, relationships, beliefs, values, and memories that make up a person’s subjective sense of self. This helps create a continuous self-image that remains fairly constant even as new aspects of the self are developed or strengthened over time.

An identity crisis is a developmental event that involves a person questioning their sense of self or place in the world. The concept originates in the work of developmental psychologist Erik Erikson, who believed that the formation of identity was one of the most important conflicts that people face.

 Symptoms Of An Identity Crisis

If you think that you’re going through an identity crisis, there are a few signs and symptoms that might help identify it:

  • Feeling lost or confused about your future;
  • Not knowing who you are or what you want in life;
  • Having a hard time making decisions;
  • Struggling to connect with people who are important to you;
  • Uncertainty about decisions in life such as what job to take,
  • What city to live in, or what school you want to go to; and not feeling like yourself anymore
  • Experiencing changes in your mood, such as feeling more anxious, depressed, or angry than usual;

NOTE: An identity crisis can feel like the end of the world when it’s happening. It is important for people who are experiencing an identity crisis or mid-life crisis to know that they are not alone.

 

Other Types Of Identity Crisis

There are other types of identity crisis that don’t fit into these three categories, such as:

A cultural identity crisis

This happens when you feel like your culture is changing and you don’t know how to connect with it anymore.

An ethnic identity crisis

This happens when you feel like your ethnicity is important to who you are, but you’re not sure how to connect with it.

A religious identity crisis

This happens when your religion is important to you, but you’re not sure how to connect with it.

 

 

Consequences of Role Confusion

I am not talking here about a Title on a Job Description or one that your parents have given to you because it is ‘tradition’.

  • Role confusion can have lasting consequences on a person’s life, including:-
    • Difficulties in commitment: A stable personal identity allows individuals to have better relationships with others.
    • Worse mental health and well-being: research has liked a strong sense of identity to better emotional and psychological well-being in adolescents
    • Weak sense of self: role confusion has been found to lead to a weak sense of self.
    • lack of confidence: a lack of self identity can make it difficult for people to have confidence in themselves and their abilities

Identity Crisis – As an Organisation

Outdated Processes Some People Keep Doing “Just Because”

How many times do we hear the question “why are we doing it this way?” and the answer is always along the lines of “because we have always done it this way.”  Think of things like restrictive dress codes, or seemingly out of date policies.  Outdated business processes and systems that do not correlate in any way with the Key Performance Indicators that a business is measured upon.  In other words, if the customer or the client, measures the business performance by a set of factors, then all of those things should appear as priorities in the company processes and systems.  I spent many years in business consultancy carrying out assessments on a variety of businesses, large and small, both as a member of a team, and also as a Lead Assessor.  You would be surprised to see how many businesses were focussed on working towards adhering to existing processes and systems to match those ways of working, when the outside world would carry out statutory inspections on a host of different factors.  Processes were scrutinised for the benefit of internal satisfaction factors, but the priority ones were the statutory requirements, as a minimum, that needed to be a priority.  They are called Key Performance Indicators for a reason.  Too many businesses are no longer on our high streets for reasons like these.  There are other factors of course, but if a business does not learn to read the room, and recognise the changing customer base, the risk is high in terms of delivering a service or product, which is not high on the list for the people who are on the receiving end of what you have to deliver.  Businesses who carry on regardless in the way that makes them feel comfortable, in the mistaken belief that the customer base, has to accept the way of things being done, because it has been that way for centuries and it is tradition etc., will ultimately fail to make the grade.  The days are gone where a business or institution will be allowed to stand in isolation of the needs of the people that they need to justify their existence, and those who ignore those changes in demand, will ultimately fail. Monarchy or The Firm as the UK version likes to refer to itself sometimes, should have cause for a number of concerns.

The age profile of the Royal Family is one where most of the ‘workforce’ is beyond retirement age.  That has been a red flag for a few decades and one which the country and the family alike just ignored.  There is a reason why you rarely see any successful organisation with its CEO in their 90s.

Most of the family members have no experience of business in the real world, and where a few of them have worked, they have been in the ‘employment’ of organisations who are from Aristocracy, and placed in senior roles, with zero experience of the business, and with no test of competency. Most of them were home schooled and even where they attended school, the establishments they attended would never officially claim that the student/pupil was not meeting the grade.  The rare occasion where an educational establishment would benefit from a connection of a Royal attending their school or university, carried more weight.  Charities have found there has been no advantage of having a Royal Patron, and many of them have gone out of business, or a teetering very close to the edge of going out of business, and having connections to a Royal has not proved beneficial.  No more income comes into the charity, merely because of a Royal connection and the Royals do not donate any funds towards their said charities.

Research has shown, and this has been covered in a previous podcast from last year, that Royals tend to choose charities that they have an interest in, as opposed to competency in the nature of the business.  I will link the last research paper published about the percentage of time BRF members spent with their chosen charities and the time with charities allocated to them, and combined the total is very low indeed.  When you read the report, it is easy to see why change in business processes is minimal in Royal circles, because people are given things to feed their ego and sensibilities, and not based on a genuine need by the charities in question for assistance in some way, not just cash.  Not even going to attempt to cover other roles of the UK Royal family in a soft sell Diplomatic role when they travel to certain countries.  I come back to competence, and the lack of it, for many of the hats that the Royals choose to wear on any given day, and they are treated like a Golden Child, who must be humoured and everyone has to play along with the latest role play.

Conclusion

  • the hunter and prey activity needs to stop. By both media and the BRF.
    • It is not a good look, and even though the UK plans to withdraw from adherence to the Human Rights Act, and develop its own set of rules (which include preventing a UK citizen from approaching any European court about any Human Rights issue/complaint, without presenting their case to a UK body (yet to be named) to agree that they have a case that everything has been done in the UK first, before anyone will be allowed to approach legal advocates in Human Rights organisations. Sensible individuals can see what is intended by this when or if it is introduced in that form.
  • No matter how those societal groups at the top will try to ensure that each of their fellow groups are protected from the UK public having their say about the future of the Monarchy in years to come, it will happen one day. The chance to vote on such a topic will happen, and no matter how many ballots it takes, modern society does not want such a set up; it has no relevance in a modern society.
  • Changes in the UK approach to Human Rights, may or may not occur, but for certain, activity against a family of 4 where 3 are USA citizens is not going to be allowed to continue. Abuse of power was taking place against a USA citizen on UK soil, let alone how it continued in North America and now in their current home.
  • No citizen of any country should be refused access to legal support from any country, without having to get it approved first within their country of residence, and in so doing giving perpetrators forewarning of what could possibly occur.

The Royal family in the UK would be best advised to look at their ‘business’ and have a complete overhaul of systems and processes, which allow for adequate scrutiny and measurement.  Otherwise, step aside and become diplomats via the government contacts you already utilise both ways.  The revolving door will continue, but not at public expense.

There will be no need for you all to rattle around in your mansions, with 50+ bathrooms.  Vacate all Crown property and go buy your own mansion or mansions and pay for security if you still think you will need it.

You wont have to play second fiddle to a crown in a car, being driven to Westminister and which ever Royal has to deliver the Queen’s speech in future, will hopefully look happier to be there.  The global eyes witnessed the complete opposite in May 2022.

Like I said, all of you need to agree on the direction of travel to Royal life, not just the journey to deliver The Queen’s speech. The impression that I personally get about the way Prince Harry is treated is anger but mainly jealousy, because dressing like him and trying to do the same things, and appear in the same spaces in the future, will not work.  You are not him and your wife is not Meghan.  All of you find your own identity and work to improve it by actions.  The multitude of saviours who are identified from month to month in UK Royalty feels like you think you are all Marvel characters.  None of the saviours have even looked or sounded convincing about presenting themselves correctly to the public, let alone saving the Monarchy. Start to be realistic in your ambitions and activities and build slowly, otherwise they will be more lost Commonwealth countries, and unfavourable trade deals placed in front of the UK, because the nations trading, know that the options have drastically reduced since the UK is ploughing its own furrow.

Britain is no longer Great but it could be again, but it requires a sense of realism not bluster.

 

Ivy Barrow

260622

Reference Sources

An Identity Crisis: Causes, Symptoms, Types and Coping Tips (mantracare.org)

What Is an Identity Crisis? (verywellmind.com)

The Challenges of Transforming the Business Model – Glocalthinking

When Your Business Model Is in Trouble (hbr.org)

Backwards Britain: Why It’s Time to Abolish the Monarchy | The National Interest