Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Does Buckingham Palace have a whiteness problem?

Does Buckingham Palace have a whiteness problem?

By Amit Roy

BACK in the late 1960s, when then home secretary and later prime minister James Callaghan was planning to bring in legislation to outlaw discrimi­nation on the grounds of race or sex, Buckingham Palace took the view that “coloured” people were good enough to be employed only as servants.


Even clerical jobs were closed to them, let alone senior posts. Under pressure from palace courtiers, the Labour government conceded defeat and agreed that race and sex laws should not apply to the royal family.

One especially revealing document from Febru­ary 1968 summarised the result of discussions be­tween TG Weiler, a Home Office civil servant, and Lord Tryon, the Keeper of the Privy Purse, who was responsible for managing the Queen’s finances, and other palace courtiers.

In precisely drafted minutes, Weiler noted: “They suggested that the staff of the Household could be regarded as falling into 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 coloured immigrants or foreigners; and (c) ordinary domestic posts for which coloured applicants were freely considered but which would in any event be covered by the pro­posed general exemption for domestic employment.”

Weiler added: “They were particularly concerned, however, that if the proposed legislation applied to The Queen’s Household it would for the first time make it legally possible to criticise the Household. Many people do so already, but this has to be accepted and is a different footing from a statutory provision.”

The Guardian newspaper came across these doc­uments while trawling through material at the National Archives at Kew on the Royal Family’s dealings with the ethnic minori­ties. A spokeswoman for the National Ar­chives made it clear to Eastern Eye that it had not made any announcement about these documents, which had been availa­ble for public inspection for many years. It was just that The Guardian had stumbled across them.

The paper explains the political back­ground to the negotiations between the government and Buckingham Palace. What is not known is whether the Queen was personally consulted on the race legisla­tion. On the Commonwealth, she has al­ways had progressive views and once was even at odds with her prime minister, Mar­garet Thatcher, who opposed imposing sanctions against apartheid South Africa.

As heir to the throne, Prince Charles has been even more in advance of his times. He has wanted to be defender of faiths rather than defender of faith, has always spoken up for Islam and built up a close relationship with the British Asian community for whom he has established a charitable trust.

According to The Guardian, “the newly discov­ered documents reveal how the Queen’s consent procedure was used to secretly influence the forma­tion of the draft race relations legislation.

“In 1968, the then home secretary, James Calla­ghan, and civil servants at the Home Office appear to have believed that they should not request Queen’s consent for parliament to debate the race relations bill until her advisers were satisfied it could not be enforced against her in the courts. At the time, Callaghan wanted to expand the UK’s racial discrimination laws, which only prohibited discrim­ination in public places, so that they also prevented racism in employment or services such as housing.

“A key proposal of the bill was the Race Relations Board, which would act as an ombudsman for dis­crimination complaints and could bring court pro­ceedings against individuals or companies that maintained racist practices.”

The paper adds: “By March, Buckingham Palace was satisfied with the proposed law. A Home Office official noted that the courtiers ‘agreed that the way was now open for the secretary of state to seek the Queen’s consent to place her interest at the disposal of parliament for the purpose of the bill’.

“The phrasing of the documents is highly signifi­cant, because it suggests that Callaghan and the Home Office officials believed it might not be possi­ble to obtain the Queen’s consent for parliament to debate the racial equality law unless the monarch was assured of her exemption.”

The paper adds: “As a result of this exemption, the Race Relations Board that was given the task of in­vestigating racial discrimination would send any complaints from the Queen’s staff to the home secre­tary rather than the courts.

“In the 1970s, the government brought in three laws to counter racial and sexual discrimination in the workplace. Complainants in general were em­powered to take their cases directly to the courts.

“But staff in the royal household were specifically prevented from doing so, although the wording of the ban was sufficiently vague that the public might not have realised the monarch’s staff had been ex­empted. A civil servant noted that the exemption in the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act had been ‘accepta­ble to the palace, largely because it did not explicitly single out persons employed by Her Majesty in her personal capacity for special exception’ while still removing them from its scope.”

It adds: “In 1990, the journalist Andrew Morton reported in the Sunday Times that ‘a black face has never graced the executive eche­lons of royal service – the house­hold and officials’ and ‘even among clerical and domestic staff, there is only a handful of recruits from eth­nic minorities.’”

The Guardian believes “the documents are likely to refocus attention on the royal family’s historical and current relationship with race”.

This is a reference to the allegation made by Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, that when she was pregnant with her son Archie, there were “concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he was born”.

When Prince William was asked by a reporter, “Is the royal family a racist family, sir?”, he was emphatic in declaring, “We’re very much not a racist family.”

A Buckingham Palace spokesperson said: “The royal household and the sovereign comply with the provisions of the Equality Act, in principle and in practice. This is reflected in the diversity, inclusion and dignity at work policies, procedures and prac­tices within the royal household. Any complaints that might be raised under the act follow a formal process that provides a means of hearing and reme­dying any complaint.”

However, Priyamvada Gopal, professor of Postco­lonial Studies in the Faculty of English at Cambridge University, is not convinced: “I believe the monarchy to be deeply tied up with white supremacy. Histori­cally, it is deeply tied up with colonialism. It is deeply tied up with wealth extracted from slavery and from colonialism. And I don’t think the monarchy has ex­amined its ties to white supremacy. When you look at the balcony (of Buckingham Palace), and you look at who the monarchy is seen with, by and large, this is a heavily white milieu. And it has not even been able to make accommodation for one member of the family who is not from a white background. And it had ques­tions to ask about a future member of the family who might have a slightly different skin shade. And so the question begs itself, how white are you? Do you have a whiteness problem?”

The Guardian has put the documents online: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/ 20793954/buckingham-palace-papers.pdf

More For You

uk-railways-iStock

The package includes £415 million to upgrade the rail line between Manchester, Huddersfield, Leeds, and York, a route affected by delays and disruptions. (Representational image: iStock)

iStock

Government announces £1.7 bn transport investment for the North

THE GOVERNMENT has announced a £1.7 billion investment to improve transport infrastructure across the North, focusing on buses, roads, and rail.

The funding aims to upgrade key routes and improve connectivity across the region.

Keep ReadingShow less
Keir-Starmer-Getty

Keir Starmer’s communications chief has resigned after nine months in Downing Street. (Photo: Getty Images)

Getty Images

Starmer’s communications chief Matthew Doyle resigns after nine months

KEIR STARMER’s communications chief, Matthew Doyle, has resigned after nine months in Downing Street. Doyle, a Labour veteran who previously worked for Tony Blair, joined Starmer’s team as communications director four years ago when the party was in opposition.

His departure follows that of Sue Gray, Starmer’s former chief of staff, who left in the autumn. Doyle’s exit is expected to lead to the promotions of James Lyons to director of communications (strategy) and Steph Driver to director of communications (delivery), according to the BBC.

Keep ReadingShow less
Lakshmi-Mittal-Getty

Mittal, who built his steel business over five decades, moved to the UK in 1995. (Photo: Getty Images)

Getty Images

Lakshmi Mittal may leave UK after non-dom tax abolition: report

STEEL tycoon Lakshmi Mittal is considering leaving the UK following the government’s decision to abolish the non-domiciled tax status. The move would make him one of the most prominent entrepreneurs to leave due to the tax reform.

Mittal, who has lived in the UK for three decades, has informed associates that his departure is likely due to Labour’s decision to end the non-dom regime, which allowed certain residents to avoid paying UK tax on foreign income.

Keep ReadingShow less
King Charles

The palace said in a statement that after receiving scheduled treatment in the morning, the king had 'temporary side effects that required a short period of observation in hospital.' (Photo: Getty Images)

Getty Images

King Charles cancels engagements after cancer treatment side effects

KING CHARLES has postponed his engagements for Thursday and Friday after experiencing side effects from his ongoing cancer treatment, Buckingham Palace announced.

The palace said in a statement that after receiving scheduled treatment in the morning, the king had "temporary side effects that required a short period of observation in hospital."

Keep ReadingShow less
Salman Rushdie to release first major work since stabbing
Rushdie was stabbed about 15 times: in the head, neck, torso and left hand, blinding his right eye and damaging his liver and intestines. (Photo: Getty Images)

Salman Rushdie to release first major work since stabbing

BRITISH-AMERICAN novelist Salman Rushdie will publish his first major work of fiction since the brutal stabbing that blinded him in one eye, his publisher said on Thursday (27).

The Eleventh Hour, is a collection of short stories examining themes and places of interest to Rushdie who narrowly escaped death during the 2022 attack. It will be released on November 4, 2025.

Keep ReadingShow less