Meghan Markle’s critics find a way to doubt everything she says, including her claims that an unnamed member of the royal family once asked a racist question about the color of her and Prince Harry’s then-unborn child’s skin.
After the allegation was made, Prince William insisted that the royals were “very much not a racist family” — something everyone was raising an eyebrow at even at the time. But now we have to issue an official “Sure, Jan” because we now have the receipts showing the monarchy employed racist hiring practices in the past!
According to UK outlet The Guardian, a 1968 letter from a civil servant found in Britain’s national archives states that — and TRIGGER WARNING for racially insensitive language here — “it was not, in fact, the practice to appoint colored immigrants or foreigners” to “clerical and office posts” at Buckingham Palace although such people were considered for lower status “ordinary domestic posts.” Oof.
Now, critics might dismiss the over 50-year-old document as irrelevant to today’s monarchy; however, the publication also reveals the institution is still to this day exempt from equality legislation that other organizations in the UK are required to follow.
Wow…
The 1968 letter was unearthed as part of an ongoing investigation into a legal and constitutional procedure called “Queen’s Consent,” which requires the British parliament to seek permission from the monarch before debating any law which may affect her interest. Sounds like a conflict of interest to us, but y’all continue with your monarchy there…
For what it’s worth, Buckingham Palace has repeatedly tried to downplay the Guardian’s probe into the procedure, previously insisting Queen’s Consent was really just a ceremonial process, and that consent “is always granted by the monarch where requested by government.” However, the paper uncovered multiple documents that would suggest otherwise, including an exemption for the Queen on having her art collection searched for stolen or looted artworks.
As for the alleged racism exemption, the paper cited a 1968 note from a civil servant, who explained how senior royal courtier Lord Tryon sought to keep the Queen exempt from the country’s first workplace anti-discrimination legislation Britain’s government was planning to introduce.
The civil servant wrote that Tyron had explained how Palace staff fell into one of three categories:
“(a) senior posts, which were not filled by advertising or by any overt system of appointment and which would presumably be accepted as outside the scope of the bill; (b) clerical and other office posts, to which it was not, in fact, the practice to appoint colored immigrants or foreigners; and (c) ordinary domestic posts for which colored applicants were freely considered, but which would in any event be covered by the proposed general exemption for domestic employment.”
When the legislation was officially introduced in the ‘70s, government officials reportedly worked with Her Majesty on the exact wording of these laws to make sure she didn’t have to follow them. The paper notes the Queen “has remained personally exempted from those equality laws for more than four decades.”
Moreover, the Race Relations Board — which, at the time, was responsible for investigating complaints that were typically referred to be tried by British courts — was specifically told to send any staff complaints of the Queen to the home secretary instead. Because of this exemption, the paper said it is “impossible for women or people from ethnic minorities working for her household to complain to the courts if they believe they have been discriminated against.” Ugh.
Although the Palace did not dispute these sneaky exemptions when questioned by the Guardian, it said it had “a separate process for hearing complaints related to discrimination” — however, reps did not specify what this process was.
Either way… Meg’s racism claims don’t seem so outrageous now, do they? Sound OFF with your thoughts (below)!
Related Posts
Source: Read Full Article