Like all firms, the royal family must learn to listen on diversity

The writer is chancellor of Coventry University and chair of Shakespeare’s Globe

Like many businesses in the UK, the royal family or “the firm” as it is known, has long faced diversity challenges.

On occasion, it has reacted well when faced with “difference”. Albert, Queen Victoria’s German husband, faced hostility for years from courtiers and public, but gradually changed attitudes by embarking on a series of good works and forcefully carving out a role for himself. The Battenberg family, of whom Prince Philip was a member, also changed its name, to Mountbatten, to sound less German following the war.

Some differences are not so easily dealt with. The law had to be changed to allow a female firstborn to be able to ascend to the throne, in case William and Catherine gave birth first to a girl. Similarly, an Act of Parliament would be required to accommodate the accession to the throne by a Catholic, since the Act of Settlement 1701 decreed that the throne was settled on a Protestant line from that time.

But while we can legislate for improved equality of treatment, laws cannot create an accepting environment. This is often true for any person of colour entering a business or even “the firm” — as shown by the allegations by Prince Harry and Meghan Markle of racism within the royal family. Nor can one expect that person to take it upon themselves to change the minds and attitudes of everyone else. It should not be their task as the problem isn’t actually theirs.

For this reason, I have always been sceptical of the appointment of a woman or a person of colour to be the diversity and inclusion officer in a firm. By definition they’re most likely to be the person within the organisation who doesn’t have the problem accepting someone different.

If there isn’t a willingness from the top down of a business to usher in change — and if an understanding of that intention, plus clarity about the benefits it brings, is not conveyed to everyone else in the organisation — the newcomer is positioned to fail. Change has to be structural and extend even to encouraging third parties that the company interacts with, to either accept it or no longer benefit from the relationship.

It is also helpful for the new person to be given a senior management member as counsellor, mentor or éminence grise. In the royal family, Lord Mountbatten acted as such a figure for Prince Charles, and Prince Harry appeared to hope his father could have operated in a similar way on how to deal with the press and wider family protocols. It was particularly heart-warming to see him play a leading role in loco parentis as he accompanied Meghan Markle into the church on the day of her wedding.

Of course, Prince Albert benefited from Queen Victoria being firmly on side — a level of support that most do not have. But we should recognise the lasting change this brought to the nation. No culture is so superior that it will survive without investigating new thinking, modernity and the beneficial elements of other cultures.

Times change, of course. My parents’ generation of people of colour never complained about the appalling treatment they received in the UK. That is probably why they were so admiring of the royals — they recognised a similar stoicism. My cohort has been more vocal, but still absorbs a good deal of hostility. But members of Harry and Meghan’s generation refuse to tolerate inequity. They want the world to hear their narrative. And why not? How else will we learn?

Prince Harry this week asked that his interview with Oprah Winfrey be seen as an opportunity to heal relations with his family. I think he’s right. The UK should cherish having a constitutional monarchy with no administrative power; for one, it avoids the lure of corruption that this often brings. But, as with any business, this constitutional good fortune doesn’t mean that we should tolerate a refusal to listen and learn.