When The Service Model Becomes Obsolete


This week’s podcast looks at organisational obsolescence, and the indicators to recognise and understand Obsolescence Risk.  If these red flags are not recognised and dealt with at an early point in the process, any business is liable to fail at some point in the future – beyond the practical stage of being able to throw a few changes at the problem with the hope that the business can carry on.

We will explore, in a simple format a series of signs, that need to be recognised and strategic plans made to ensure the longevity of the business in question. We will cover the following areas of business planning and use all of that information to look at the last few Monarchies left in the world, and take a closer look at the UK Monarchy, and map it across to the main points of discussion leading up to different types of Monarchies and look at where the UK Monarchy fits into the roadmap, and to form an opinion about its longevity.

  • Outdated Processes Some People Keep Doing “Just Because”
  • Ways from Keeping Your Business from Becoming Obsolete
    • Eg Apple deliberately Build in Obsolescence into some of its models of mobile phones
    • Human Capital Obsolescence
      • Challenges faced by Human Resource Teams
    • The History behind Countries that Abolished their own Monarchies
    • Monarchies in Europe
    • 4 US States are called Commonwealths and the significance behind the label.

Outdated Processes Some People Keep Doing “Just Because”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  Think of things like restrictive dress codes, or seemingly out of date policies.  Outdated business processes and systems that do not correlate in any way with the Key Performance Indicators that a business is measured upon.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.

In this day and age, too much is at stake to have a group of people, given roles, simply allocated by the birth canal from which they emerged and in what order in comparison to others.  We also do not have time to discuss the breach in the Human Rights aspect employed if any of those individuals have a desire to live and work outside of the Royal bubble.  It is not allowed and is dressed up as duty.

Ways to Keep Your Business from Becoming Obsolete

Even some of the greatest brands are becoming obsolete.  Here a few examples of key ways to win the battle for the relevance in the years ahead.  Reference – ie listed at the end of the article, and is by Michael McQueen.  In the financial sector, once lucrative revenue models are increasingly coming under siege; equally distribution channels that were once stable for decades are crumbling – it is apparent that the rules of business have changed.

  • Technological shifts:- consumers have greater access to information than ever before. Simply providing a transaction interface as a broker, agent or advisor is no longer enough.
  • Demographic shifts:- It is critical that businesses and brands take steps to understand and engage with Gen Y (ie a generation of consumers and clients who make their presence known)
  • Legislative shifts:- Regulatory change. Government move the goalposts, which means that financial services and brands and organisations have no choice but to respond.

Ways to Succeed in Navigating Imposed Change:-

  • Change before you are forced to
  • Become clear about the business you are actually in
  • Prune dead wood
  • Question everything
  • Re-engineer outdated systems and processes
  • Beware of biting off more than you can chew
  • Become ruthlessly customer centric
  • Look to motivate
  • Encourage discussions within the team/organisation
  • Seek a point of difference ie rather than trying to outdo the competition in your market, how can you pursue a new market in a new way? Consider Cirque du Soleill did just this and managed to build a flourishing business in a dying circus industry.


 The History behind 10 Countries that Abolished their own Monarchies

Taken from an Article produced for Meghanpedia in 2020, taken from the Insider.com.

Let’s extract key themes emerging where they could have an relevance to the British Royal family decades down the line.i

  • Monarchies have ended for a variety of reasons o Military coups, democratic elections or murder.
  • Some Royal Family members remain prominent after their monarchies are abolished while others are forced into exile.
  • The last King of Bulgaria was elected as the country’s Prime Minister more than 50 years after the monarchy was abolished.
  • Queen Elizabeth II remains the worlds longest remaining monarch.  Whilst that sounds like a wonderful legacy, it is likely to cause the decline of the same monarchy, due to the age profile and competence of those scheduled to take up the mantle and lead the monarchy in the future.



  • France monarchy ended with the French Revolution King Louis XVI of France took the throne in 1774 but food shortages and economic troubles  prompted mass rebellion in the form of the French Revolution in 1789  King Louis and his wife Marie Antoinette were imprisoned and eventually executed by guillotine.


The King of Portugal ended in 1910.  Manuel II was the last King of Portugal ruling from 1908 until the country became a republic in 1910.  He became King at the age of 18, after his father and older brother were assassinated in Lisbon.  Manuel fled to London in 1910 when the revolution broke out.

Some descendants of the Portuguese Royal family remain such as Dom Duarte, Duke of Braganza, but regarded as representative of the monarchy but with no actual power.


Czar Nicholas II of Russia abdicated the throne in 1917, bringing an end to the Romanov dynasty.  The abdication took place amid strikes and protests in Petrograd now known as St Petersburg.  The movement was known as the February Revolution and brought about the end of 300 years of the Romanov dynasty rule of Russia.

Nicholas who was first cousin with Britain’s King George V was held with the family until they were killed by Bolshevik forces in 1918.


Kaiser Wilhelm II grandson of Queen Victoria was the last German emperor and King of Prussia.  Wilhelm II became Kaiser after the death of his father in 1888.  A series of blunders and misplaced spending during World War 1 led t his abdication in 1918. The abdication was announced before he had agreed to it; he lived the rest of his life in exile in the Netherlands.


The Ottoman empire ended in 1922 and Turkey became a republic a year later.  When the Ottoman

Turks were defeated in World War 1 most of their territories were divided up between Great Britain, France, Greece and Russia in the Treaty of Lausanne  The title of Ottoman Sultan ended in 1922 and Turkey was declared a republic in 1923.


The Greek monarchy existed from 1832 to 1924 and again from 1935 to 1974.  King George II went into exile from 1924 go 1935, when the Populist party rose to power in the Assembly, and reinstated the monarchy. It was abolished for good under a military regime that declared a republic for a 2nd time in 1973.

He was exiled and moved to London but returned to Athens in 2013 because he was homesick and the rising property prices in London.


Italy became a republic in 1946, ending the role of the Royal family.  The last King of Italy, Victor Emmanuel III remains a controversial figure.  During his reign he enabled Bernito Mussolini fascist regime and legalised the persecution of Jews.  After Italy voted for a republic in 1946 Victor Emmanuel left the country and lived in exile in Egypt until his death in 1947.


Romania’s monarchy ended in 1947 but members of the royal family remain prominent.  Romania became a constitutional monarchy in 1881.  King Michael 1st was the last King of Romania and is a distant cousin of Queen Elizabeth.  King Michael spent the rest of his life in Geneva.


Simon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha of Bulgaria is one of the only monarchs in the world to have been elected head of a democratic government.  Simon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha was the last king of Bulgaria.  Communist coup in 1944 led to the abolishment of the monarchy in 1946.  After living in exile in Madrid he returned to Bulgaria in 2001, formed his own political party and was elected prime minister. He celebrated his 90th birthday in 2017.


The last king of Nepal, King Gyanendra Bir Bikran Shah Der resigned from 2001 to 2008.  Gyanendra took the throne in 2001 after Crown Prince Dipendra assassinated King Birenda and 8 other members of the Nepalese royal family before fatally shooting himself.  The kind dissolved parliament in 2002 during a turbulent time for the country and he was forced to reinstate it in 2006 after weeks of protest.  Two years later Nepalese Constituent Assembly declared the country a demographic republic and abolished the monarchy.


Monarchies in Europe

As of 2022, there are 12 sovereign monarchies in Europe.  Seven are kingdoms:- Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the UK, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium.

Andorra, Liechtenstein, and Monaco are principalities, whilst

Luxembourg is a Grand Duchy

Vatican City is a theocratic elective monarchy, ruled by the Pope.

The monarchies can be divided into two broad classes:- premodern states and those that gained their independence during or immediately after the Napoleonic Wars.

  • Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the UK, Spain and Andorra are the successors to premodern monarchies.
  • Liechtenstein, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg were established to gain independence through various methods during the Napoleonic Wars. The State of the Vatican City was recognised as a sovereign state administered by the Holy See in 1929.
  • Ten of these monarchies are hereditary and two are elective
    • Vatican City (the Pope elected at the papal conclave) and Andorra (technically a semi-elective diarchy)
    • The joint heads of state being the elected President of France and the Bishop of Urgell, appointed by the Pope).

Most of the monarchies in Europe are constitutional monarchies – which means that the monarch does not influence the politics of the state:-

  • Either the monarch is legally prohibited from doing so, or the monarch does not utilise the political powers vested in the office by convention.

There are two exceptions, which are Liechenstein and Monaco, which are usually considered semi-constitutional monarchies due to the large influence the princes still have on politics, and Vatican City which is an absolute monarch


What is a Constitutional Monarchy?   (Extract from SGUK podcast Episode 14 – October 2021)

Quotation from the site: Britpolitics.co.uk

Constitutional monarchy refers to a system in which the monarch acts as a non-party political head of state under the constitution, whether written or unwritten

  • systemin which the king or queen’s power is severely limited, because they act only on the advice of the politicians who form the government
  • As Head of State, The Monarch undertakes constitutional and representational duties which have developed over one thousand years of history. In addition to these State duties, The Monarch has a less formal role as ‘Head of Nation’. The Sovereign acts as a focus for national identity, unity and pride; gives a sense of stability and continuity; officially recognises success and excellence; and supports the ideal of voluntary service.
  • In all these roles The Sovereign is supported by members of their immediate family.


The term monarchy derives from the Greek ‘monos arkhein’ meaning ‘one ruler’.

Queen Elizabeth II is the sovereign and head of state of the UK and its overseas territories.  The monarch, referred to in the abstract as “The Crown”, is the source of all legislative and executive power.  Since Henry VIII the British monarch is also Supreme Governor of the Church of England. The monarch is also Head of the Commonwealth and the head of state in 15 of the 53 Commonwealth member countries.  The British political system is a ‘constitutional monarchy’: the supreme power held by the monarch is largely ceremonial and formal, with actual political power exercised by others.

In the United Kingdom, the monarch has the following constitutional duties: the state opening of parliament; the appointment of the prime minister; the approval of parliamentary legislation; the approval of official appointments; the approval of secondary legislation through the privy council; representational duties as head of state such as paying and receiving state visits to and from other heads of state; receiving the credentials of foreign Ambassadors; and regular confidential audiences with the prime minister.

In addition to these constitutional duties, the monarch is also the head of the armed forces; the head of the judiciary; the head of the civil service; and the supreme governor of the Church of England.

The monarch is also the fount of honour, and all honours are awarded in his or her name (although, with notable exceptions, most are awarded on the advice of the government).

Support for the monarchy

The argument that the UK should abolish the monarchy and become a republic remains at the fringes of mainstream political debate.

The monarchy as an institution retains public support and the Queen herself is perceived largely as above criticism, despite the standing of the Royal Family being regarded to have suffered considerably in the last 30 years. I personally think that perception is changing, but people still do seem to think the Queen is untouchable, and that it is heresy to criticise her in any way.  I do think, however, that increasing numbers of people think that the Monarchy will begin to crumble once the Queen passes.   NB. There are clear signs in recent weeks that the public view of the Queen is changing, but I suspect not much will be said or any action discussed until she passes, out of respect for the Queen herself.  Her age and the visible signs of failing health, is allowing her a pass on too harsh a critical expressions in the media.  The same cannot and will not be said for the next two heirs – if indeed there is one beyond Prince Charles.

According to YouGov Polls in October 2020, 67% of people wished to see the monarchy continue in the future, compared to 21% who stated their preference for an elected head of state, and 12% who didn’t know.  Support for the royal family remained almost identical amongst different social classes, albeit there were regional and age variations. Compared to 67% in the country as a whole, just 58% of Londoners and 42% of those aged 18-24 supported the continuation of the monarchy.

Never forget that Camilla (Duchess of Cornwall) nephew is on the senior management board of You Gov, so take any poll from that source with a pinch of salt.  Shame, because it used to be one of the reliable ones many years ago, but clearly, the BRF have their tentacles into that organisation now, and any statistics from there will only show positive things about the Royal family, particularly Prince Charles, and only negative things about the Sussexes. The only reason I am quoting from them at all is to say with certainty that never in this world is there 42% of 18-24 year olds who wish to retain a monarchy.  The percentage of people the age of William and Kate do not support them to that kind of figure, and therefore I am sure that even younger age group of people in the UK does not reach anywhere near 42% in terms of retaining the Monarchy.  I am guessing that the young people polled came from the aristocracy.

Am impartial and symbolic head of state
A constitutional monarch is one who is above party politics or factional interests.”

  • If this was true The Queen and members of her family would not be holding meetings behind closed doors, where media are not even allowed to be on the grounds of the venue chosen for these non partisan or non political chats with senior politicians and/or former political leader all with the view to try and stop Scotland gaining independent status from the rest of the UK.
  • Someone above party politics does not have laws changed to ensure that the Royal Family is exempt from meeting environmental targets or does not have to comply with the Equality Act or diversity statistics made public.

A constitutional monarch is also able to give impartial non-political support to the work of a wide range of different types of organizations and charities that would not be possible in the same way for a political figure.” Quote from politics.co.uk

  • Too many of the charities that the Royal family claim to support are closing due to lack of funds. There is an archaic belief that merely having the Royal logo showing against the Charity name, will ensure success.  As there is next to no actual feet on the ground support from members of the RF apart from ribbon cutting and a visit every few years, it is clear that they are operating with a business model that is centuries old.  No tangible benefit to the charities or the nation.

This unifying non political role of the royal family spreads through the Queen’s annual Christmas Broadcast, attendance at ceremonial events like Trooping the Colour, and the dispatch of congratulatory or telegrams to centenarians and couples marking their Diamond Wedding anniversary.

  • The role is not a unifying role with anyone else other than the government of the day. It is definitely not tangible in the eyes of the general public.  No stranger, giving any kind of broadcast to a nation can possibly connect, when the rest of the year, they may as well live on another planet.  They are totally out of sync with ordinary people, and demonstrate every day, that they have no understanding of the life lived by most people every day.  A smile and a wave every now and then does zero for me.  It is condescending to think otherwise.  The fact that there are 53 commonwealth countries in existence, and 15 of them still have the queen as Head of State is mind blowing to me.  I hope all of the 53 come to their senses soon.  The signs were very evident from the recent disastrous Caribbean tour.  A tour that most of the islands stated that they did not welcome, but the BRF sent their representatives regardless.  The arrogance of that school of thought, and the obvious major error that was made was evident within minutes of stepping from their plane.
    • To treat the only person of colour who joined the family in 2018 with such abusive behaviour, which led to suicidal ideation, and which ultimately made life so untenable for the Sussexes that they stepped back from Senior Royal duties and left the UK in March 2020, speaks volumes to sensible people. To then think that some type of perceived charm offensive by imposing visits from members of the Royal Family to the Caribbean, would be welcomed.  Not to mention the islands made it clear that a visit was not welcome, but the Royals went anyway, and to add salt to the wound, the style and content of the whole visit, to every island, reeked of Slave Owners visiting its various Plantations.
    • The world witnessed in real time, what was done to Meghan Duchess of Sussex, and continues to be done to the Sussexes, by instruction from the BRF. Members of the Commonwealth witnessed it too, and when you hurt one person of colour, you hurt all of us.  The Commonwealth have felt uneasy for some time, about the current arrangement, but were waiting until the Queen passed to raise it as an issue, however, the treatment of Meghan, and the continued arrogance that the Royal Family carry on as though nothing has happened, and that somehow a false smile and a handshake through meshed wire fences is going to lead to positive opinion, is naïve and more importantly offensive.
      • If courtiers had any semblance of knowledge of true public opinions outside of the Royal bubble, I cannot imagine anyone of the Royal family being sent to the Caribbean and expecting a positive outcome. What is without doubt, worst people to send on a charm offensive, to the Caribbean of all places, was the Cambridges.  The worst.  The couple who are pivotal in Meghan and subsequently Harry’s suffering, and continued abuse by the family as a whole, were top of the list of who NOT to send to a black nation.
      • The 2nd error was to set up a series of scenarios which replicated coloniser vibes on the plantation. The images from that tour are anything but good.  The fact that no one on that team recognised the elephant in the room, and thought that those images were fine to circulate around the world, speaks volumes


A system that has been in place for centuries has no place in the modern world.  None.  The UK BRF exists because it is supported by the government, and the other groups I have mentioned.  It allows a way of life to continue without challenge.  The British people have never been allowed to vote on whether or not a Monarchy is wanted, and the media arm of the quartet of vested interests. Do not wish their way of life in each group to change.

Now, when we look at the British Royal Family, and its notion of being a Firm, many things fall short, in terms of adapting and staying alongside, if not ahead of the changes.  One of the main stumbling blocks on such an entity is that the members of the Firm, ie the notional workforce, are family members who are given roles, which have nothing to do with competency or ability to acquire knowledge, but merely on the order of birth from a parent who is also judged by their position in the Line of Succession. Activity has never been measured or scrutinised in any way, and quality is therefore always described in glowing terms, despite the fact that no meaningful measure is ever applied. The figures shown every year next to the various patronages are meant to give the impression of increase in income from being a patronage of the Royal Family, and each year this index is proudly quoted in terms of the number of visits, ribbon cutting, waving etc and the income that flowed in as a result.  The reality is that those figures are estimates of what WILL LIKELY BE earned in that year, when all the calculations are made.  No explanation is ever given about how those figures are arrived at and at what point do the ‘actual’ earnings ever appear?  Unlike businesses in the real world, they have the pressure of providing detailed figures to a variety of bodies, including HMRC for tax purposes.

Key Points:-

If the Queen is Supposedly acting on behalf of the government of the day.  Therefore does this mean, protecting Prince Andrew from the legal process was approved by the UK Govt?

Nothing negative is ever written publicly about those regarded as Senior Royals and in Line of Succession – no matter the activity.  When something does appear to be criticising a snr member of the BRF, it is due to the other two palaces working together to remove what they deem to be blockage on the way to the throne.

  • The hereditary monarchy system encourages family members to be pitted against each other, and history has shown that some of those who were in line to take the throne, their lives were brought to an end, by people connected with/on behalf of the next in Line.
  • BRF claimed that Meghan was not family and not an employee of the BRF. No financial provision made for her; she paid her own way. The Firm claimed that it would be embarrassing to admit that a member of the BRF needed to seek help for her mental health.
    • History has shown that those in Line of Succession to the throne, will NEVER be shown to have done any wrong, and will certainly not be made accountable. Traditionally Royals used a Whipping Boy to take the blame for their deeds of the senior Royal.  Since Prince Harry stepped away from this toxic environment, a few people have fallen on their sword for a senior Royal – whatever the official statement put out.  Currently those queries relating to the money trail of funds coming in for one purpose, but being used for something entirely different, are investigated by the same charity foundation which appears to have knowledge of this money trail.  Why not an independent investigation?  The age old excuse, the Monarchy and its senior Royals cannot be seen to be criticised?
  • Royals exempt from the laws that the rest of the country has to abide by??
  • Environmental legislation has been changed following intervention by the queen to make all royal households exempt from such requirements. Officially the Queen does not lobby, nor any of the family, yet here we are with the queen changing legislation behind closed doors.
  • Equality legislation does not apply to the workforce employed by the Monarchy?? Once again, mirroring behaviour of the UK govt in a few areas where it seems rules do not apply to them either.  Eg travelling during lockdown for a non essential reason. The treatment of the only person of colour entering into the BRF has placed the largest nail yet in the lifespan of the BRF. I have doubts about the members of the Royal family, because when the monarch is the head of the legal system and the church, and all the other groups mentioned in the societal tree, have tentacles into those organisations, all will rally around each other to protect each other.  Like I said earlier, it is all about joining the dots.  Sussex Squad joined those dots since 2017, and have been adding to it since.
  • Some of the people that the BRF commissioned to do dirty deeds to destroy the marriage taking place of the Sussexes, and the clear intent to destroy or end life of Meghan Duchess of Sussex, will ultimately lead to more name rising to the top of the toxic heap that they all inhabit. Some of those will be deemed dispensable, and others will no doubt be given valid reasons for their silence.

In the time of global pandemic, we have groups of people working overtime, on tax payer funds, to preserve their way of life.  Concern for the way of life of the people in the UK appears to be far from their minds. That is an issue that should be at the forefront of UK residents minds.

  • The telegrams from the Queen when an ordinary person reaches the age of 100 is tokenism, when the quality of life in the UK has reduced for most people, a communication from a person who does not care one iota about you is meaningless.
  • A card for couple who reach a diamond anniversary means diddly squat to most people, not least because it is insincere, and just a factory line production.

It is important for a nation to realise that demographic changes affect all areas of human activity:- economic, social, cultural and political.  All forward thinking businesses research, develop and build their business plans based essentially on those 4 areas listed above.  Any business that plans activities outside those areas, is destined to fail at some point in the future.  Not everything can be predicted but most things can be if policy makers and strategy specialists follow and interpret trends in each of those areas.  Where things happen that could not be foreseen, then the ability and speed of flexibility comes into play.

The British Royal Family refers to itself as The Firm, not a family, yet it does not operate in any shape or form like a well run business.  Times have changed, and businesses that remain in business by loyal customers, or who remained in a time warp together, are becoming few and far between.  The businesses that have survived, and who will be able to somehow hold on to some aspect of their operations in the current global Covid-19 pandemic, and who recognise the need for completely new ways of working, and delivering a service, are the ones who are the most likely to be successful, no matter what.  There is an increased role for support services (background teams such as Human Resources, Finance Departments, Strategy and Policy teams etc., who are almost having to design and develop new ways of preparing and delivering training for new skillsets, alongside new recruitment practices to succession plan for a workforce that is ageing, and educational institutions and professional bodies (in some areas) playing catch up.  There are training programmes and professional qualifications not quite in sync with the skillsets and knowledge and way of working that is required now, and will most likely evolve over the next few years if not decades.  Those who can adapt and keep their eyes on trends emerging, are likely to be the ones still standing in years to come. Important for people to recognise leading and lagging indicators here.  E.g. professional bodies amending professional requirements for various professional development required standards, cannot do that overnight.  Professional qualifications take time and experience to reach the minimum standards, therefore some of the things introduced into policies now, may not produce the results until a few years down the line.  The important thing to note is that successful organisations will be able to demonstrate they are aware of the future risks to service delivery and have built in mechanisms to prepare the workforce through policy and strategies.

If those businesses cannot trade because of something like a global pandemic, then the bottom line is that less income is generated, and staff are put on reduced hours, or lose their job completely.  No Monarchy has that issue to worry about, so the game of let’s play diplomat, or let’s play a business executive, etc etc does not really cause any of the said family to lose any sleep about what is happening in the world. Matters that occupy the minds of ordinary people, do not occupy the same percentage of space in the minds of some groups in society, the Monarchy being one.  Life will continue along at the pace and style that Royal families around the world wish, and as long as they show a modicum of interest and empathy with the woes of their respective countries, things have worked out for a few.  There are a few Monarchs who are beginning to realise that they will need to adapt on a large scale, if they wish to survive a little longer, as I firmly believe over the next few decades all will be gone from the global map.  In the case of the British Royal Family, their methods have served them well up to now, but once there is an element of independent thought and a real awareness and knowledge of some of the hardships being experienced in the world, no institution can continue blindly carrying on with their traditions and practices as if somehow to carry on and not acknowledge world events that impact their own nation as well as a wider scale, is the way to portray the British Stiff Upper Lip to the global and national audience.  One can only assume because there is no stress of food shortage, or loss of home, due to loss of income, or a danger that the business may fold, then the part of the demographic data[i] that is crucial in workforce development and planning, may not seem important to The Firm. Looking at the age profile of the British Royal Family[ii], and the lack of acceptance of the only person of colour into The Firm, combined with the clear void of any meaningful Business or Financial Planning, suggests that the British Royal Family is in serious trouble.  When most of the workforce of any organisations is of pensionable age, and the handful of ‘younger’ working members have never been encouraged or trained to actually be competent in any aspect of the business world, then to my mind, the cracks are there in the Royal Vessel, but not visible yet unless one knows what to look for. Courtiers/advisors to the BRF are in the same pensionable age bracket as the people they are advising; most have limited knowledge of life in the corporate world where they have had to experience real performance management where their role depended on the results, or for that matter public relations it seems.  I see trouble ahead.

The UK Royal Rota gossipers (they are not journalists and they are as distant from performance management as they are right wing) through its publications like to continuously state that the Queen as reigned for 70 years or thereabout.  This is NOT a good thing for any business.  No problem for a family, who can provide support and love and care for their aged relatives, when most if not all working age adults are actually working.  However, in the case of the BRF, having a token leader who is almost a century old, and the next in line around 30 years younger would have been ringing alarm bells in sane peoples minds decades ago.  I have no idea if the Queen was ever competent in her role, as no measures have ever been done.  History books can only state how long she reigned and did a few tasks connected to motor cars in wartime.  The current Prince of Wales, can show outcomes of projects making a difference, and continue to be successful.  The ongoing initiatives are few and far between, and the general theme appears to have been, projects focussed on subjects that the Prince had a particular interest in, not necessarily societal needs as a whole.  Nevertheless, the Prince of Wales did not just sit around, he attempted to create something which would always be synonymous with his name. Benefits to wider society are limited, hidden behind the façade that those things are for government officials to do, not a member of the Royal Family.

We then come to the next in Line of Succession.  Approximate 30 year gap between him and his father the Prince of Wales.  Duke of Cambridge has no projects that he set up from scratch.  No measures of performance can be allotted to his name other than the number of times he has been photographed and filmed on what are they described as “work engagements”.  The Duchess of Cambridge has even less than her husband.  The excuses given by the Royal Rota is that “they are on a different path to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex” and their activities cannot be measured in that way.  Let’s not forget that when projects/initiatives are looked at in terms of outputs and funds raised and the community groups and businesses involved can show clear benefits to the customers, all of such projects have been created by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex – individual projects as well as joint initiatives.  The Sussexes were too popular and successful for the Royal Family to live with, and ensured that life became intolerable and dangerous for the Sussexes to remain in the UK.  The spotlight is now well and truly on the British Royal Family, and they are wilting under the gaze. Karma.

It is clear as crystal that the Queen will not be able to even function as a figure head of the Royal Family for much longer.  Enter the next in Line who is aged 70 plus and by all accounts, does not look healthy.  Let us just assume, the next King will reign into his 90 plus years – the next in line will be the age his father was when he becomes Monarch. Ie 60 plus.  The Duke of Cambridge has no one, currently with the skill set to create and deliver sustainable projects.  The Advisors in use for the last few decades also live in a protected bubble.  The future certainly does not look bright.  The Cambridge children may be ‘prepared for duty’ from an early age, and I do not mean waving and smiling and turning up for photo opportunities which ensure that at least one person of colour is present.  That is the current approach.  Survival of the British Royal family relies on the ‘slaves in an opulent setting’ still to be in play.  In other words, it is assumed that the oldest child will just assume he will be King one day, and no consideration will be given as to whether he is competent to do so, or whether in fact he wishes to do so.  We all know how the “spares” in the Royal Family are treated, and the fact that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are still standing and breathing and free from the slave regime, is down to their personal skill set and wish to be of service to the vulnerable, alongside the miracle that is Sussex Squad.  Sussex Squad is not a fanbase, it way beyond that description.  Sussex Squad is a global support network, here to challenge lies and deception and propaganda from the Royal Family and Associates.  I sincerely hope, that the Cambridge children look to history and see what their Uncle Harry and Aunty Meghan did to escape from the opulent slavery setting, and will do the same.  I actually hope that the Monarchy comes to end way before then, but if all else fails to guide the UK population to really question the need and purpose of this archaic institution, the escape of the Cambridge children described as Spares, will ensure the gravy train ends for good.

The UK monarchy has its support base mainly in the age group similar to themselves, and there are far less of those in the Cambridge age group.  The numbers that used to appear on their social media platforms, were in the main, haters of the Sussexes, not supporters of the wider Royal family, and the rest were autobot accounts, which has been proven by independent research and reported on in the USA quality press.

Now the Sussexes have gone, and taken their support base with them, the shortfall in interest and income is already being noticed.  I predict it will not improve enough to justify future decades of a UK Monarchy.  The Royal Family have failed to recognise that demographic change has an impact on them too.  They have relied on Royal Rota spin that they are adored and will be fine and that the institution is safe.  The UK likes all the pomp and ceremony etc.  People suffering job losses and poor nutrition in what is meant to be a successful country, is not a good look and ensures that most of those people cannot and will not identify with the opulence of palace living.  Young people have uncertain futures in terms of prosperity and being free to do and plan things like their parents did in their younger years.  People of colour have seen how the Royal Family, supported by the establishment, treated Duchess Meghan when she entered the family, and how short her time there actually lasted, despite the clear popularity and successes of all projects and tasks undertaken.  Those actions all came to a head in the Commonwealth Service on 9th March 2020, where in a final stroke, people of colour here in the UK and within the Commonwealth and then globally, had the alienation confirmed.  The UK cannot come back from that, and certainly not as long as the Royal Family exist. Increasing societal groups feel alienated from the opulence that is constantly in our media reports, as well as negative reports when people of colour are seen with opulence and on many occasions are seen as helping those who are less fortunate. It seems very selective as to who the UK is comfortable with having a luxury lifestyle.

The British Royal Family have alienated so much of our society, and their support base matches the current age profile of the family itself.  There will be trouble ahead.  Meanwhile Sussex supporters have all moved (virtually and otherwise) to Monticito.  We are not Royalists so any attempts to ride the Sussex wave will be removed.

Learning point:- All those the UK Royal Family have alienated, will prove to be one of the largest mistakes the Family and its Advisors and Associates have made and it will be depicted in the history books.  Sussex Supporters left with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. None are focussed on or interested in the day to day activity of the British Royal Family. The recent Caribbean Tour is just the beginning of areas where the BRF alienated whole groups of people by its behaviour towards certain societal groups over the years, particularly since 2016.  The BRF and its media – printed, online and televised, the UK Government, certain UK police forces must all take responsibility for the alienation of certain groups in society and should not now be surprised that globally the UK is no longer revered the way it used to be.  All of the damage done to the reputation of the UK has been self inflicted by those who believed that the tried and tested practices and models of the way certain things are done, do not need to change, and the same results were expected every time.  The same results will not be achieved, and as the UK Prime Minister recently experienced, the cold wind of change was evident for the world’s press to see without filter.  The UK PM looked uncomfortable and very much on the periphery of a number of interactions with other world leaders.

A key theme running through all of this section is when the systems and processes you put in place, then outlaws other groups in society who prior to those systems being put in place, were welcomed in the country, you cannot then go and try to intermingle with the said nations, who you have just sent high numbers back to their country of birth, or elsewhere around the world, and expect to be welcomed let alone hope for favourable trade deals.  The Caribbean tour is the template of what is to come in a variety of places.  It is useful to remind everyone listening to this podcast, that only the black members of the Commonwealth are required to possess a visa before they can enter the UK, but the white nations do not have those entry requirements. Another example of the duality of approach by UK Monarchy,  in recent years there was a planned tour of Australia – Australians made it clear that a visit from a UK Monarch was not wanted at that time, and the visit was cancelled.  During the same period, visits were planned to the Caribbean, and it was made clear that the visit was not welcomed by some of those islands, but those visits went ahead anyway.  The views of people of colour were ignored by the UK government and its Monarchy.  The old saying “you reap what you sow” will be evident for the next decade or so.  The UK way of conducting business is out of step with increasing numbers, and the ripple effect on the UK, or England, if the others manage to break away as some wish to do, combined with how the UK is viewed globally. The next couple of decades or so will be interesting, if not painful, to watch unfold.

You cannot disrespect your workforce, and batten down the hatches and go it alone to Utopia.  When you realise you need some form of assistance, you then expect to go with a smile and a handshake to the nations you previously disrespected their citizens, and think that you will be welcomed with open arms.

Any business enterprise that operates using old playbooks like those used in the past, and expecting the outcomes to be the same in the future despite society changing, will go to the wall, or at best languish in no mans land.  All self inflicted.


No, there is no need for a Monarchy anywhere in a modern society.  None.  The façade that they think they are portraying is not fooling many, and I personally can live my life without a smile and a wave from people who would only employ someone like me in a servile position.  Most of the BRF are dunderheads, and are in no position to look down on others, just because of whichever birth canal they emerged from.  My family and ancestors knew more about values and humanity than any of these current cult members on a plantation behind gilded gates.  This present group are more than content for people to lose their life, or be placed in danger, if it ensures survival of the Monarchy. I will never forgive for the actions taken against the Sussexes, and will actively join any movement that is genuinely operating for it to come to an end.

Harry and Meghan are the face of global humanitarianism.  Monarchy anywhere is not.


Ivy Barrow



Reference Sources










[i] Demographic Data = socio economic information expressed statistically, also including employment, education, income, marriage rates, birth and death rates and more.

[ii] Demographic Analysis = study of population based on factors such as age, race and sex.

[ii] Managing Demographic Risk – Harvard Business Review. HBC.org 2008/02  www.futureofworkhub.info

[ii] Workforce of the Future – PwC   www.pwc.com