Our royals aren’t diverse enough

No one can change history, although many are trying. And the history of English royalty is truly shameful.

Her Majesty the Queen, a few geenrations from now

If you look at all our kings and queens, you’ll find they’ve all been offensively white. Judging by the fact that she is portrayed by a black actress in a recent TV series, Anne Boleyn might have been the sole exception – and some die-hard racists deny even that.

Prince Harry is doing his level best to improve this calamitous situation, but his effort may be described as too little, too late. In any case, he is so far down the line of succession that even if his children grow up to marry appropriately coloured spouses, our monarchs will remain white. Perhaps if Meghan could dump Harry and a have a child with Will… but let’s not go there.

If we could start from scratch, we’d doubtless make sure that the royal family reflected the demographic makeup of the population at large. But we can’t backtrack to the beginning, so there.

What we can do, however, is apply our progressive standards to the royal staff, and that’s precisely what the lobbying group Race Equality Matters has done. And what do you know, its findings confirm what we’ve always suspected: the Palace is infested with institutional (or is it unconscious?) racism.

Only a miserly 8.5 per cent of its staff represent various ethnic minorities. This though most of them have been recruited in London, where such groups make up 40 per cent of the population.

When this gross, borderline criminal iniquity was pointed out to the royal retainers, they were suitably contrite. “Could do better,” admitted a senior Palace spokesman. “We recognise we are not where we want to be and we want to improve.”

Where they want to be as a point of departure is at the dizzying height of 10 per cent. No wonder Raj Tulsiani, co-founder of Race Equality Matters, thinks that’s not good enough.

The Palace, he said, doesn’t “deserve a pat on the back” for expressing good intentions. “Amplifying aspirations for future inclusion, it’s nothing. It’s just words,” he added in the inimitable progressive idiom.

What kind of deeds would be deemed satisfactory? I get it. The Queen should summarily sack the Royal Equerry, Maj. Tom White, and appoint a racially appropriate replacement.

He – or better still, she – could then be given the task of dismissing the entire staff and starting a recruitment drive in certain areas of South and East London. For one thing, that would enable Her Majesty to improve her currently strained finances. After all, staffers living in Tower Hamlets are guaranteed to come cheaper than the denizens of, say, Belgravia.

That would keep Mr Tulsani happy, and his happiness is the primary, possibly only, aim of Britain’s domestic policy. However, those of us who have no say in Britain’s domestic policy, and whose happiness is very far down on the country’s list of priorities, may wonder yet again if the world has gone mad.

In a sane world, a campaign for diversity would only make some sense if ethnic minorities could be confidently shown to be underrepresented due to wilful discrimination. However, that’s not the case, quite the opposite.

If any discrimination is at all observable, it’s of the positive kind, with racial minorities receiving preferential treatment. As that great man Thomas Sowell, himself black, has shown, a private firm can’t afford to discriminate against qualified candidates.

Companies compete not just for markets, but also for staff. Good help, as the saying goes, is hard to find, and finding it is a reliable way of gaining a competitive advantage. Hence, when a qualified black or Asian applies for a job, rejecting him on racial grounds would mean cutting the company’s own commercial throat.

Dr Sowell showed that this isn’t the case mainly on American data, and race is a much more sensitive issue there than in Britain. Speaking from personal experience, whenever I was in a position to hire a talented copywriter or art director, I looked at his portfolio, not the colour of his skin. I didn’t care if it was black, brown, yellow or polka dot – and neither I’m sure does any employer these days.

Though the royal family is sometimes colloquially called the Firm, it’s certainly not a private firm. And Dr Sowell shows that discrimination is more likely to occur in the public sector, where the stakes are lower, and competence has little immediate impact on success.

However, only a madman would believe that our royals could indulge racial prejudice even if they were so afflicted. Our ‘liberal’ hacks are predominantly republican, and they constantly roam around the Palace to find a weak spot they can pounce on. If any sign of racism were detected, the clamour would become deafening.

In all such situations, no one asks the only logical question: Why do we think that ‘diversity’ is ipso facto desirable?

Surely our whole society would stand to benefit if every job in the land were filled by the most qualified candidate, irrespective of his race or any other extraneous characteristics? And surely we’d all stand to lose if such characteristics trumped relevant qualifications at hiring time?

I for one wouldn’t like to be operated on by an inept surgeon who got his job only to fill some idiotic quota. Nor would I like to have my plane flown by a bad pilot chosen on similar criteria. Would anybody?

Such questions are never asked because modernity is obsessed with form at the expense of substance. Modern barbarians whip out their calculators and scream bloody murder whenever the numbers don’t add up to some mythical virtue.

Eventually such shrieks bust the eardrums of previously normal people, and they accept madness as sanity. They end up adopting the false premises imposed on them and drawing wrong conclusion on that basis.

All I can do is offer a premise I consider right: Diversity isn’t intrinsically good. If it happens naturally, fine. But shoving it down people’s throats will make the whole society choke on the reflux.

So I wish the Palace could tell the likes of Mr Tulsiani to perform an acrobatic and ballistically improbable act on themselves. Then again, I also wish I could lose a couple of stone without starving myself.

11 thoughts on “Our royals aren’t diverse enough”

  1. Another mention of the great Dr. Thomas Sowell! I was reading his “Economic Facts and Fallacies” last night. It includes a chapter on race (and, more importantly, culture), showing that his expertise ranges far beyond his education in economics. His writing style is engaging and even when peppered with results of studies and numerical analysis quite apart from boring the reader, the facts just enforce his points- and what many of us already believed or felt to be true.

    Those crying racism (wolf!) are really the only people left who are overtly racist. The teaching of critical race theory in our schools has conditioned children who never before considered color or race to see it now lurking around every corner. Job well done. The Marxists require division to push their agenda, so now they are working overtime. It helps to have a like-minded government .

    Dr. Sowell has written, “Bias and prejudice are attitudes- things inside people’s heads- while discrimination is an overt act taking place outside, in the real world. That is not a small distinction…” And there are always costs associated with actions.

    I work at a small software and data analysis consulting firm. In the 23 years I have been employed there, we have had mostly white staff (this includes Asians, as given their economic success, they are considered white here in the U.S.) . Are the owners of the firm openly discriminating? Well, yes, but only on the basis of brains and work ethic. In my 23 years, not a single black or Hispanic person has applied for a job. Tough to hire people who do not want the job.

    As Dr. Sowell asks, “What reason was there to expect these groups to be the same in the first place?” “Many… fallacies arise from implicitly assuming that various groups are comparable in skills, experiences, or attitudes.” That last attribute- attitudes- is probably the greatest factor in any hiring disparities. As Charles Barkley (former player and current basketball commentator) said, “For some reason we’re brainwashed to think if you’re not a thug or an idiot, you’re not black enough. If you go to school, make good grades, speak intelligent and don’t break the law, you’re not a good black person. We’re the only ethnic group that says, ‘Hey, if you go to jail, it gives you street cred.’ It’s a dirty dark secret.” Attitudes.

    But on to the problem at hand… Your Royals just need to start “identifying” as members of the correct group, and asking staff to do the same. Result!

    1. I am reading another book of his, Wealth, Poverty and Politics. Wonderful stuff. I just wonder what would happen to Sewell if he were white and still wrote the same thing. His trace protects him from a charge of racism – no one cares about truth any longer, everything is an ad hominem.

      By the way, if I recall correctly, in the US the term ‘Asian’ is usually applied to people from Sotheast Asia. In Britain, it’s mostly used to described those from the Indian subcontinent.

      I’ve written on the subject of who is and who isn’t black enough a couple of times, once after Biden told his black audience: “If you vote for Trump, you ain’t black.”

    2. “The Marxists require division to push their agenda, so now they are working overtime.”

      And they are succeeding. Even the most highest ranking American military men seem to be just gaga over this CRT.

  2. My wife was given a job in a Peckham Academy school because she was white .
    They had so many blacks (mostly Jamaicans ,who detested the African variety ) there that they were down on their quota of whitey . Round of applause for Tony Bliar !

    1. Sounds like your wife is guilty of cultural appropriation. Surely school faculties should be predominantly black, with a smattering of Muslims. Where do does Mrs Adams think she lives, England?

  3. I have a suspicion that Markle knew exactly what she was going to do to the Royal Family , full in the knowledge that her fellow leftists/ race hustlers would run interference for her . She played the Victim/heroinne to the hilt with cucked chip-on-shoulder Harry also fulfilling his role as bitter enabler , oblivious (or not ) to the damage wreaked on not just the “Firm” but the western world . Every institution is under threat from within and without and Gramsci must be grinning from hell. Harry really is the most useful of idiots .

    1. I’m not sure she knew it in any conscious way. It’s just that all her instincts demand she do her bit to destroy what little is left of our civilisation. She no more had to think it through than a lion has to weigh the pros and cons of pouncing on an antelope.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.