In the heart of London’s esteemed West End, amid the glittering lights of Theatreland, sits the Garrick Club. Established in 1831 under the patronage of Augustus Frederick, the Duke of Sussex, this private members’ club has long been a sanctuary for the male elite of British society. Named after the legendary 18th-century actor David Garrick, the club was envisioned as a gathering place for “men of refinement and education,” a tradition it fiercely upholds to this day.
With its nearly 200-year history, the Garrick Club boasts a membership roster brimming with societal luminaries. From government ministers to judges, from acclaimed actors to prominent businessmen, the club has been a favored haunt of the British establishment. Even King Charles himself has graced its hallowed halls.
However, the club’s steadfast adherence to its male-only policy has recently come under scrutiny. Revelations of its exclusive membership have sparked controversy, with calls for public figures to sever ties with the institution. Critics question the judgment of powerful men who willingly partake in an exclusionary establishment, where women are systematically barred from entry.
The recent resignations of prominent figures like MI6 chief Richard Moore and civil service head Simon Case signal a seismic shift in attitudes towards the Garrick Club. These departures mark a turning point in the club’s storied history, as its insular traditions clash with evolving societal norms.
Despite its storied past, the Garrick Club finds itself at a crossroads. Its membership, overwhelmingly white and predominantly elderly, reflects a bygone era of privilege and exclusion. Recent revelations have laid bare the stark reality of its insular world, prompting soul-searching within its ranks.
Attempts to diversify the club’s membership have been met with resistance. Actress Joanna Lumley’s bid for admission in 2011 was rebuffed, highlighting the club’s entrenched stance on gender exclusivity. Subsequent polls have shown a slim majority of members in favor of admitting women, yet the club’s rules remain unchanged.
Critics liken the club’s management to a “Putin-style” regime, where dissent is met with swift reprisal. The recent expulsion of long-time member Colin Brough, who advocated for gender inclusivity, underscores the club’s intolerance towards dissenting voices.
While women are permitted to enter the club as guests, they are relegated to peripheral spaces, barred from certain areas reserved exclusively for members. The club’s archaic dress code further reinforces its outdated ethos, with strict guidelines dictating attire for both men and women.
In the face of mounting criticism, voices advocating for change grow louder. Jemima Olchawski, chief executive of the Fawcett Society, denounces the club’s sexist policies as relics of a bygone era. She calls upon influential members of British society to reject institutions that perpetuate inequality and exclusion.