King Charles & Camilla plan to cut the royal household staff by 20%

Something I think about a lot is how Kensington Palace had a staff of (easily) 40 to 50 people in 2017-18, and they ALL threw tantrums for years about the Duchess of Sussex’s preparedness and work ethic. KP is clearly staffed by clowns, morons and lazy, well-connected aristo-adjacents. Is it the same in other palace offices? We know King Charles was grossly over-staffed as Prince of Wales, and Prince William certainly inherited some of his father’s staff. We also know that QEII was a terrible manager and she really never bothered to improve the royal-office situation whatsoever. All of which means that one year into King Charles’s reign, he’s still dealing with his mother’s old staff, his old staff, the KP clownery and too few “royals” for it to make any sense. King Charles has new plans to cut royal household staff by 20%.

The King is planning to axe an estimated one in five of his middle-management staff to boost the Royal Household’s efficiency, The Mail on Sunday can reveal. Charles and Camilla are said to be dismayed by what they believe are too many staff doing similar jobs. Nearly a year into his reign, the King is also weary of senior courtiers telling him: ‘But that’s how the Queen did it.’

The cuts will hit Buckingham Palace, Sandringham, Windsor Castle and Balmoral – which employ hundreds between them – and form part of the King’s long-held ambition to streamline and modernise the Monarchy. Dozens of workers could be affected. For years, a leaner Monarchy with fewer working Royals – potentially seven rather than 11 – has been a priority. But the King realises this involves staff reductions. He is said to be acutely conscious of the financial burden a vast household places on the taxpayer.

‘There is a real feeling that the staffing at all the palaces is too heavy,’ said one insider. ‘There are far too many assistants to assistants. The King and Queen would prefer to pay people proper wages top to bottom but have less people. For instance, there are chefs for them and chefs for the staff. Why, they ask, can’t there be one lot of kitchen staff for everyone?’

Camilla has made it clear that ‘a levelling-up of Royal staff’ is needed. She will have a key role in overseeing any changes. ‘Her Majesty cannot abide too many people doing the same jobs. Senior housekeeper, executive housekeepers and juniors,’ said a source. She has raised the matter with the Master of the Household, Vice-Admiral Sir Tony Johnstone-Burt.

Although Balmoral was his mother’s favourite residence, it does not find the same favour with Camilla. The Mail on Sunday has been told that she has made a conscious decision to stay at nearby Birkhall, the home she has shared with Charles for years in Scotland, because she cannot abide Balmoral’s ‘flummery’. A source said: ‘She is dipping in and dipping out while the King is staying at Balmoral. She is staying at Birkhall where she has a limited number of loyal staff – her people.’

[From The Daily Mail]

I… honestly don’t have a problem with this? Charles is actually right? How many royal household middle-managers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? How many royal-only chefs work in these palaces and castles full-time, when Charles and Camilla only spend a few weeks a year in some of them? Speaking of, that’s interesting about Camilla not wanting to spend time in Balmoral. It’s the same with Charles too – they’re in their 70s, they’re set in their ways, and they already had all of their homes set to their preferences. That’s why Camilla and Charles prefer Clarence House, Birkhall, Highgrove and Ray Mill. Anyway, while I think a culling of the royal household is a good idea, C&C are going to piss off a lot of those staffers and maybe those people will start spilling some real tea.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

58 Responses to “King Charles & Camilla plan to cut the royal household staff by 20%”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Digital Unicorn says:

    Yeah – TQ kept a lot of the family on the payroll and yeah it was long commented that she had too many staff.

    Re: Balmoral. That place has long cried out to be modernised but TQ wouldn’t have it – will be interesting to see what Chuck does to it. He does have an eye for that kind of refurb.

    • Megan says:

      How will Charles survive without a yeoman of the wardrobe?

    • Dutch says:

      One would think QE2 had enough longtime staffers on the payroll who are now past retirement age that Charles could cover the 20% and then some by just getting them to retire.

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        IIRC there was a bunch on initial redundancies and retirements in the months after QE2 passed – seems like this is something longer term.

  2. Well I guess it’s a start. He should also not be so heavily funded by the taxpayers. I’m sure those being cut will not be happy and you’re right I hope some tea is spilled. As for Horsilla I’m sure she is happier with staying at the stable of her choice with groomers of her choice so she can happily indulge herself with her favorite gins and oats and nobody is the wiser.

    • Renae says:

      But she just has to also keep her farriers!

    • AnnaKist says:

      I have also been wondering about all the staff in all the royal houses. In fact, just how many royal houses are there with staff? Houses that they never visit? While he is shitting staff, he should be shedding some of those houses. I bet there are a lot of them that they haven’t seen in years. Turn them into tourist attractions or something and layoff the taxpayer. The royal family is a cabal of parasites_

  3. Amy Bee says:

    They probably should get rid of another 10 percent.

  4. Wannabefarmer says:

    Slimmed down monarchy, slimmed down staff, but 45%(?) raise for him. Why does he need it if he’s cost cutting. All the while his people suffer. Yep, that’s the ‘monarchy’, let them eat cake.

    • NotTheOne says:

      It doesn’t make sense. And why a % with no corresponding number? How many people do they employ? I have to imagine it’s embarrassingly high. And most of the probably have very little to do.

    • Sue E Generis says:

      I’m guessing the money is for Camilla. She and Andy Barker-Bowles long ago realized that Charles was their family gravy train and Camilla knows the second Charles dies, William will cut her off, so she’s riding for all she’s worth. I think she’s stealing jewelry (the missing $80M worth), she’s acquiring properties, she’s establishing trust funds (her children already have them, I think she’s extending it to others and topping up the kids’/grandkids’). She’s also getting jobs, titles, allowances to fund businesses etc.

    • Lorelei says:

      That is exactly where my mind went. I agree that this is actually a good move by Charles, but why in the name of all that’s holy is the RF getting almost 50% more money when they have fewer people doing less work!?

  5. HeatherC says:

    They have to stop using terms like slimmed down monarch and leaner monarchy. They’re still getting the same amount of money to spread across less people so they end up ahead.

    I hope that by eliminating redundancy, the ones that stay get a raise (I’m talking household staff, etc). I hear they’re horribly underpaid.

    • Moxylady says:

      They are horrifically underpaid. And many of them under the Queen did it for the job security and the housing and food that were provided. They believed they would be taken care of in their old age due to their years of service for pittance.

      Charles better provide decent pensions because he’s going to cut a lot of seniors who don’t have much in savings and haven’t had to compete in this housing market or pay market rates.

      But those getting into it now? They need to know it’s a job and they have a right to be paid for their time and their work at a competitive market rate. There is no – oh they worked for the royals darling! We simply must hire them!
      That’s some downton abbey shit and hasn’t been applicable since probably the 60’s.

    • Becks1 says:

      It says in the article that Camilla would rather pay “proper wages” but have less employees – so I guess the idea per this article IS to pay more. It will be interesting to see their idea of a “proper wage” though……

      • Moxylady says:

        But to pay proper wages starting NOW. While letting people go who have been paid poorly for decades and who live in provided housing which I’m sure they will lose.

        Why make it sound like – yes we are saints. We are going to pay our servants a proper wage!

        Like good for you? You fucking should have been ALWAYS doing that? Go Scrooge mcduck in your piles of looted plunder while those who work for you get aid for food and your son shops at annual sales at a discount store for clothes to wear on the near constant tours you sent him on while he lived in an actual shack. Assholes.

  6. SarahCS says:

    Sure Camilla may not like the vibe at Balmoral but this also reads that she’s had enough time around him and needs a break from the nannying.

    • Sue E Generis says:

      It’s clear that distance is how they stay happily married. They are both insufferable in their own ways so they get each other in small doses and keep bumping along.

  7. EasternViolet says:

    Camilla “cannot abide Balmoral’s ‘flummery’. ” So I asked Dr Google, and apparently, she can’t stand how Balmoral’s staff are polite, but insincere.

    They don’t like the new boss in Scotland!

    • Lorelei says:

      LMAO! Was Camilla operating under the assumption that most people *do* like her? Because, news flash, she’s been one of the most despised women in the world for decades, so yeah, lots of people — especially those on her payroll— aren’t “sincere” but simply doing their jobs or showing their respect of the position, not the person currently occupying it.

  8. MaryContrary says:

    Does nobody question why in the world they all need so many homes to begin with??? It’s ridiculous. I can’t believe that Kate and William don’t get called out for this as well (besides the fact that they do almost no work.)

  9. Bordelais says:

    “The King and the Queen would prefer to pay people proper wages top to bottom.” Is there even enough publicly available information to determine if they subsequently increase the wages of existing household staff? When was the last time they increased existing wages, given the cost of living crisis? Are they even listed as accredited on the Living Wage Foundation website after being called out in 2022?
    https://robbreport.com/lifestyle/news/royal-family-staff-salaries-1234810705/
    https://www.livingwage.org.uk/accredited-living-wage-employers

    • Moxylady says:

      Regardless of a bloated staff, they SHOULD LEGALLY AND MORALLY ANS ETHICALLY BE PAYING A PROPER LIVING WAGE TO EVERYONE WHO WORKS FOR THEM. TOP TO BOTTOM.

      I don’t care if you are the under butler’s second under butler’s valet’s valet. You should be getting paid a decent living wage. They hired you. They are supposed to be the moral compass of the flipping country. Charles is the head of the Church of England. Ordained by god somehow. Which to be fair is sus as hell when you are the head of the church so really you are the one crowning yourself?

      If he could stop acting like an entitled narcissistic git and pay his f-ing people he might actually attract some talent.

  10. Blithe says:

    If I understand the ways the bills are paid, cutting staff doesn’t mean more money for the taxpayer, but, as @wannabefarmer said, more money for Charles. While I’m not applauding inefficiency, exactly, at least the current set-up is providing lots of jobs for lots of people, albeit low paying positions. So, in the midst of what’s already an economically stressful time for many, Charles is cutting lots of staff — including many who might not have easily transferable skills, unless other local monarchies are hiring.

    • Lorelei says:

      @Blithe, I laughed at your last line, but we both know it’s really not funny at all that he’s going to put so many people out of work. Many of whom probably thought they’d have their jobs until they were able to retire. So they’ll be unemployed while Charles is off on vacation at one of his many palaces/castles/etc., patting himself on the back for being so “efficient.” God I really dislike that man.

  11. Jay says:

    So, fewer staff, fewer senior royals, fewer events…but about 45% more funding from the sovereign grant? The grift is real.

    • Lorelei says:

      In all seriousness, does anyone know how or why that increase was approved? It’s ludicrous.

  12. ThatsNotOkay says:

    Cut your own salary, Charles. Then we can talk.

  13. Tina E says:

    Kensington Palace should be included in this.

    I’m sure Will & Kate’s many homes are all fully staffed. There’s a taxpayer cost to their secret separation as well.

  14. Brassy Rebel says:

    I say fire all the royals but keep the staff and pay them better. They can run and manage all the superfluous housing freed up without a monarchy. Then open up all the formerly royal residences to tourists. This is not that difficult.

  15. girl_ninja says:

    “C&C are going to piss off a lot of those staffers and maybe those people will start spilling some real tea.”

    That would be interesting. I wonder if NDA’s have been signed by the staff though.

    • Moxylady says:

      With the archaic and chaotic way royals run things, I bet a ton of people slipped through the cracks.

    • Blithe says:

      Plus, you don’t want to piss off the people who are responsible for your safety, or even for your continued well-being.

    • Monlette says:

      Yes. I have read they have to sign NDAs saying ‘what happens in the palace stays in the palace’ and they can be arrested for breaking them.
      That is how we know the marching orders for Jason Knauf’s PR skanking of Meghan and Harry came from on high.
      The sick thing is he was authorized to speak on people’s behalf, but they were not free to confirm or deny it.

  16. Mary Pester says:

    Christ the cost of living crisis is worse than we thought. Camzilla has seen the price of gin and Charlie’s eggs so has decided staff have to go. Charlie will be happy as long as he can still get his toothpaste squeezed and his shoe laces ironed, and camzilla will be happy to keep her steady gin supply, but oh no what about the buttons and wiglets 😂will keen have to actually cook at Balmoral, nooooo she will have Charlie keep at least 3 chef’s there. But seriously, a lot of the staff live in homes that come with their jobs, so where are they expected to go! Will Charlie give them the money to find new homes? I doubt it very, very much. So maybe a few editors should get their cheque books ready, and a ground sheet, because a lot of tea is going to get spilt

    • HeatherC says:

      Well Willy is the new “grill master” at Balmoral, maybe this is why lol. No cooks left, so Willy is grilling while the kids learn to forage mushrooms with Gramps.

  17. maisie says:

    I dunno,my take on Queen Side Piece not staying with Charles sounds like Ray Mill in the countryside…the press can only tiptoe around the edges that these two don’t spend much time together.

  18. SussexWatcher says:

    So…Camzilla simultaneously wants to fire a bunch of people and hates when multiple people are doing the same job. And yet – when they’re in the same country – she stays separate to her own husband in a home where, presumably, multiple people are doing the same job as at Balmoral to keep her Birkhall (and Raymill) running. Make it make sense. She’s as much of a grifter as the Midds family!

    Add to that, as many people have mentioned already, staff and family members keep getting cut while Chuckles keeps getting raises. When will the British people wake up from their generational brainwashing and abolish the monarchy?

  19. Chantal says:

    Less staff but a guaranteed 45% raise for the Rotten Family. Mo money, more problems – for Chuck and The Grifters. Esp if the competency of the remaining staff isn’t elevated. C-Rex’ “reign” thus far has lurched from one self imposed fiasco to another. The fact that KP isn’t included in this greedy culling posing as efficiency just means that many more embarrassing blunders are guaranteed to happen. I’m seriously wondering how the monarchy will survive the greed, pettiness, stupidity, and incompetencies of Chuckles and his useless heir.

  20. atorontogal says:

    Why do Camilla, Clarkson and Morgan all look so similar to each other? Could it be the hatred and booze that shrivels their hearts and looks?

  21. Well Wisher says:

    How very neo-conservative is the plan of action, his views on this action lines up with the gate-keepers?

    This will not lower the needs of a democratic society, so why do it?

  22. Beech says:

    What’s this about $80 million in missing jewelry?

    • May says:

      This issue has been discussed in previous threads. The Guardian article appears to reference pieces of jewelry that were in the Queen’s, and now Charles’, personal collection – not the royal collection. They are not missing.

  23. May says:

    I agree that this would piss off the remaining staff members (not to mention the ones let go). We all saw how KP’s bloated staff didn’t tolerate Meghan coming in and actually expecting them to work. Why would the other households be any different? I do not see this making the running of the households any more efficient. If anything, I see a slowdown coming.

  24. Libra says:

    Is that a sweat mark or a shadow under the waving arm of Charles?

  25. olliesmom says:

    Does this mean that Camilla will have to wash her pantyhose in the sink every night herself?

    • twoz says:

      From comments about her cleanliness standards when she was Mrs PB, there wouldn’t be much washing.

  26. Patricia says:

    So if they cut staff,who has to shoulder the extra workload and responsibilities?Do they get a raise for doing so?What will happen to the money saved for cutting staff?Will it be refunded to the British taxpayers?