King Charles' camp responds after staff quit Highgrove over demands
It comes following a mass exodus where 11 of the monarch's 12 full-time gardeners quit the lavish grounds over the past three years, according to the New York Post.
Charles, 76, was left licking his wounds after multiple frustrated staffers claimed they were 'overwhelmed and underpaid' — allegations confirmed by a 2023 investigation commissioned by the King's Foundation, which manages Highgrove's gardens, the Sunday Times reported.
After workers' allegations came to light this week — accusing His Majesty of spewing out unattainable demands, in addition to staff shortages, low wages and even lower morale — insiders from Charles' camp have scoffed at the claims.
'There seems to be quite a few disgruntled former staff members who are out to make trouble for the King's Foundation,' a source close to the king told Vanity Fair.
'The king loves Highgrove and is very proud of everything he has created here,' the insider said of the estate, which Charles purchased in 1980.
'Skimpy bikinis': Royals' shock lewd venues
Disgruntled or not, an investigation conducted by independent HR consultancy WorkNest had found evidence of 'staff shortages' and 'poor' management practices, confirming that pay was 'an issue for recruitment and retention.'
Despite generating more than $US8 million ($A12.1 million) in income last financial year — higher than any other royal residence — the gardens continue to operate with minimal resources, The Post was told.
Still, the probe's discoveries, coupled with the tallying complaints, have been refuted by some of the king's former staffers, including his former senior gardener Jack Stooks.
Stooks, who worked at Highgrove for more than 20 years, exclusively told The Post that while Charles does oversee the King's Foundation and its employees, the claims against him are 'unfair'.
'I think the stance toward the king is unfair,' Stooks told The Post, saying he's never had an issue with Charles.
'I don't think this should be aimed quite at him. He's employed the foundation, and, yes, he's part of the foundation, but they are running the garden.'
'The king is putting his trust in them to run it — if they're running it incorrectly or unsuitably, that's not actually on the king, it's on them,' he continued.
'If there are problems, the king can now fix these, and I'm sure that's exactly what he'll now be doing as a result.'
The mass resignations followed the departure of one staffer who had worked for the king at Highgrove for decades.
Another gardener 'failed his probation after revealing a lack of knowledge about a particular flower, instantly losing Charles' trust,' the Times reported.
'Don't put that man in front of me again,' Charles allegedly said of the staffer.
Following the allegations revealed this week, the King's Foundation told The Post that it takes 'staff welfare extremely seriously'.
'We strive to be an exemplary employer,' a spokesperson for the organisation said.
'We are proud to regularly report very high satisfaction rates in our annual staff survey.'
'Our staff turnover is well below the national average, as is the number of formal grievances raised. For the gardening team at Highgrove specifically, we regularly review guidance from the Professional Gardeners Guild for pay benchmarking.'
'Highgrove has also seen many positive developments since the King's Foundation became the charitable custodian of the gardens,' the statement went on.
'Since 2022, the operating profit has more than doubled, a new education facility teaching traditional heritage skills to hundreds of students has been established, and visitor numbers continue to reach over 40,000 annually.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
12 hours ago
- News.com.au
‘All smiles': Prince Andrew wins fight against King Charles
Prince Andrew can finally breathe a long-awaited sigh of relief. After years of digging his heels in and refusing to leave his sprawling royal residence, the disgraced Duke of York is celebrating 'having won the Royal Lodge row,' the Express reports. According to the outlet, Andrew has been 'all smiles' since finding out that his brother, King Charles, has given up trying to evict him — a stark contrast to his downcast outings earlier this year. 'Charles tried his best to get his non-working royal sibling to move to a smaller premises elsewhere to free up the royal home,' the outlet notes. As for how Andrew, 65, managed to emerge victorious in the fight over the royal digs, the duke presented Charles with 'a lease document that states he is legally entitled to stay there,' the outlet adds. The feuding brothers have been locked in a bitter, yearslong spat over the property, located on the grounds of Windsor Castle, since 2019. The Post has reached out to Buckingham Palace for comment. Andrew was poised to leave the Royal Lodge after Charles refused to continue financially carrying his brother's weight. However, it sensationally emerged in November that the shunned royal had found a mystery financial backer at the eleventh hour — allowing him to remain at the royal digs. As a result, Charles responded by removing priceless items from the plush property over maintenance and security concerns. Andrew has been living off a hefty allowance from the king's personal wealth for more than six years — ever since he was linked to disgraced late financier Jeffrey Epstein. His weighty list of expenses includes $4 million (AU$5.9 million) worth of personal security per year, as well as a regular cash allowance — both of which Charles stopped providing in October 2024. As a result, Andrew was ordered out of the 31-room property into the smaller Frogmore Cottage — but he refused. The latter property has been sitting empty since Prince Harry and Meghan Markle handed over the keys in 2023. It was previously reported that Charles had tried his all to downsize his scandal-scarred brother so that the Royal Lodge would free up for the Prince and Princess of Wales, as well as their three children. However, the future king and queen later decided that the property didn't quite offer what they were looking for, much to Andrew's relief, as it meant there were no rivals for the home. Prince William and Kate Middleton, for their part, have recently kick-started their search for their next family abode — meaning they are finally ready to bid adieu to Adelaide Cottage. Andrew has resided at the lavish home since 2004. He currently lives there with his ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson. Since finding an anonymous financial backer late last year, Andrew has faced recurring calls from the UK government to reveal the source of his mystery funding. Exactly where the duke found the cash that enabled him to remain at the property is still unclear, as his only known steady income source is a Royal Navy pension.
News.com.au
20 hours ago
- News.com.au
Heathrow unveils £49 bn expansion plan for third runway
London's Heathrow Airport on Friday unveiled a £49-billion ($65 billion) expansion plan, including the costs of building a long-awaited third runway, approved by the UK government after years of legal wrangling. The runway would cost £21 billion, with flights expected to take off within a decade, while the rest of the privately-funded investment will go toward expanding and modernising the airport. Heathrow, Europe's busiest airport by passenger numbers, said the expansion would provide at least 30 new daily routes, more domestic connections and improved flight times. The increased capacity would almost double the number of annual passengers from 84 million currently to up to 150 million passengers annually. "It has never been more important or urgent to expand Heathrow," said chief executive Thomas Woldbye. "We are effectively operating at capacity to the detriment of trade and connectivity," he added. Despite fierce opposition from environmentalists and local residents, the London mayor Sadiq Khan and some Labour MPs, the Labour government backed the new runway in January in a bid to boost UK economic growth. It would be a rare expansion in Europe, where countries are split between efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the needs of a strategic sector that has seen demand grow. Heathrow has submitted its proposal for the 3,500 metre runway to the UK government, which has also invited a rival proposal. - Green trade-offs - Heathrow's proposal includes £12 billion to fund a new terminal and £15 billion for modernisation. "A third runway and supporting infrastructure can be ready within a decade, and the full investment across all terminals would take place over the coming decades," Heathrow said in a statement. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is determined to deliver major infrastructure projects to revive the UK economy that has struggled to take off since the party came to power a year ago. The government is expected to also back expansion at Gatwick airport, south of the capital, in October -- having recently approved upgrades to London's Stansted, Luton and City airports. Britain's Supreme Court ruled at the end of 2020 that Heathrow could build the third runway, overturning a legal decision to block construction on environmental grounds. Local residents "will see their lives put on hold for a few more years while more money and time is wasted on a doomed scheme," said Douglas Parr, policy director for Greenpeace UK. He added the plans "export more tourism wealth out of the UK in the most polluting way possible." Arora Group, one of Heathrow's largest landowners, on Thursday said it will submit a rival bid to build a shorter third runway, promising lower costs and less disruption to local residents and the environment. "This is the ï¬�rst time the government has invited a competing proposal for Heathrow expansion," the UK-based property and hotel firm said in a statement. Airport-owner Heathrow's latest investment proposal comes in addition to plans to invest £10 billion over the next five years in upgrades to boost passenger numbers, which would be largely funded by higher charges on airlines.
News.com.au
2 days ago
- News.com.au
A flight rule that has long frustrated travellers has finally been scrapped
Two UK airports have already scrapped strict liquid rules – and European airports are now following. Earlier this month, Birmingham Airport and Edinburgh Airport confirmed that the strict 100ml restrictions had been given the boot. The first UK airports to do so, it means passengers can take up to two litres of liquids in their hand luggage for the first time in nearly 20 years. And European airports are now following suit. The European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) tested the new screening last month, with it now being introduced. Milan Airport has already rolled out the new rules at parts of the airport. The website states: 'At Milan Linate and Milan Malpensa Terminal 1, it is once again permitted to carry liquids, aerosols, and gels in individual containers with a maximum capacity of 2 litres, without the need to separate them from hand luggage.' It is yet to be rolled out in Terminal 2. Rome has also rolled out the new rules, confirming on the website: 'Starting from July 26, 2025, in compliance with new European Commission regulations, the transport of liquids in hand luggage will be allowed in containers with a capacity of up to 2 litres. 'Liquid containers with a capacity greater than 2L may be transported in hand luggage only if empty; otherwise, they must be checked in with hold luggage at the check-in desk.' Other airports that are likely to follow suit are large hubs such as Amsterdam. But the new CT scanners that allow the liquid rules to be scrapped are extremely expensive. London Heathrow is expected to pay a huge £1 billion ($A1.78b) to roll out the new machines. The airport's chief executive Thomas Woldbye said the introduction of new machines was slow as they had 'as many scanners as all of the British airports put together'. But the cost and labour means smaller airports across Europe are unlikely to be scrapping the rules any time soon. It is also not mandatory – so many resist rolling out the machines. Brits are still urged to check the liquid rules before flying from any airport. The strict 100ml liquid rules were rolled out in 2006 after a thwarted terror attack which would use liquid bombs in water bottles. The restrictions were initially scrapped last summer with airports like London City allowing 2 litres of liquids. However, they were reversed just weeks later by the government. And, while some parts of the UK and Europe are embracing the changes, Australia is sticking with the long-standing liquid limits for now. According to the Australian Government's TravelSECURE guidelines, passengers flying from Australian airports are still restricted to carrying liquids, aerosols and gels in containers no larger than 100ml. All items must be sealed in a single, clear, resealable plastic bag no larger than one litre, with only one bag allowed per passenger, including children.
