I
t is with some reluctance that I approach my latest essay, not with my usual heightening blood pressure or, a sense of righteous indignation but with a sense of sadness and despondency. I am writing about their Royal Highness’s the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. I hardly know where to start but I suppose the event that forced them to my attention was the Oprah interview. For a couple that wanted to step away from all the media attention and make their own way in the world, they seemed to have taken a wrong turn in appearing on prime time television. It is quite obvious that a quiet retirement was never an option and I am pretty sure that we will find it difficult to avoid them as they tell their ‘lived experience’ of Royal oppression to a gullible Oprah audience. I had formed my opinion of the Sussex’s character some time ago and felt that with the move to Canada the divorce between them and the Monarchy suited both parties and the country.
However, I knew that given their lack of character that it wouldn’t stop there. I think that there is more than a casual similarity with the Edward and Mrs. Simpson story especially with the personalities of the people involved. I think that Harry is like Edward in that he is fragile, lazy, wants to be the centre of attention but doesn’t want to do the work. He is attracted to a dominant figure that promises to release him from the boredom and suffocation of his duties. Meghan is a ‘B’ list actress who wants to be a media ‘A’ list star and made the same mistake as Wallace-Simpson by thinking that being a Royal will give her that exposure. A bit harsh do you think? You only have to look at the carefully choreographed interview, with the Diana look and the focus on the victimhood of The Little Mermaid. The Little Mermaid!
There were so many questions that Oprah didn’t ask, that to an unbiased observer, the whole story crumbled for lack of any context or, substantiation. The claim that Meghan did no research into the Royals is beyond belief. But once they had connected, did Harry not bring her up to speed? Did he not brief her on his own misgivings about the job or the supposed Royal racism? Did he not discuss his version of his mothers story? Where was he when his wife was feeling suicidal? Who was it who made that comment about Archie? This predictable playing of the ‘race card’ was typical of the whole miasma of tales that only served to support the fantasy of the poor American innocent who was ruined by those evil Royals. By the way, it is interesting to note that Harry, having witnessed the production of the race card, then refuses to support it “That conversation I am never going to share,” Really, …. watch this space. Where there were facts they were either wrong or conflated in support of the narrative. For example, the implication that Archie was barred from being a Prince because he was non white. This was intended for an American audience who wouldn’t know that the issue of granting this title was decided by George V in 1917. Again, this story was delivered by a couple who wanted to step back from the ‘Firm’ but wanted to keep all the advantages, including financial support from Charles.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding about the role of the Monarchy in the British Constitution. As a result of the interview I heard a lot of commentary on both sides of the Atlantic about how the Royals have no power, how they exist only to shake hands and open factories but that is to miss the central role they have in modern political life. Yes, they take part in colourful and quaint ceremonies like Trooping the Colour. But note that it is the Queen’s Colour that is being trooped by the Queen’s Guards. It is not Boris or a Government Minister who takes the salute but a member of the Royal family. When you receive your tax demand through the post, the envelope is marked with the legend, ‘On Her Majesty’s Service‘ (or in the case of James Bond, ‘On Her Majesty’s Secret Service’). Judges sit on the Queens Bench, that tax demand is delivered by The Royal Mail, the policeman’s helmet is surmounted by the Royal cypher and so on. Is this just a hangover from the past with no relevance to today? Well, yes and no. It is a fluid connection to the past and a confirmation as to what it means to be British. It represents tradition and good practise but it also performs a subtle but essential delineation of political power. At the opening of Parliament each year, the Queen delivers the Queen’s Speech outlining her government’s program for the coming Parliament. This takes place in the House of Lords and the Queen sends her official, Black Rod, to summon the M.P.’s in the House of Commons to attend. The door of the Commons is slammed shut as Black Rod approaches and he/she has to knock three times before he/she is allowed in. A quaint piece of colourful drama, even down to a little heckling of Black Rod as he/she delivers the Royal summons? Yes but also a marker to show the supremacy of Parliament over the Crown and of the Commons over the Lords. This, fully costumed vignette, encapsulates British Constitutional development of the past 150 years. The Monarchy occupies the spaces where a potential challenger to Parliamentary Supremacy would develop.
My discussion of the place of the Monarchy in modern Britain is less than comprehensive. The role is complex and encompasses economic, cultural, constitutional and political aspects of Britain’s past and present. It is firmly interwoven into the constantly changing fabric of society and has had to accommodate many Harry and Meghan moments and has survived. My concern is the erosion of the sense that with rights come duties. With our obsession with living vicariously via social media and the values of vaguely defined social justice. The Queen and her father, George VI, set a moral standard for a Head of State that is unequalled anywhere else. Their example encapsulates the virtues of honesty, hard work, fairness, duty, common sense, loyalty, respect and personal responsibility. This is in contrast to the shallow lives of the Edward and Wallis Simpsons and the Harry and Meghans of this world who want celebrity status without sacrifice and claim victimhood when their demands are not met.
Cartoon from the Mercury News