The British Monarchy belongs in a museum, not as the constitutional centerpiece for dozens of nations around the world. This view will gain currency because the damage as a result of Harry and Meghan’s interview with Oprah couldn’t be more serious. Tongues wag around the world following their revelations that an unnamed member of the Royal family voiced concern to Prince Harry about the color of their unborn baby’s skin; that the baby would not be given titles normally due to his “station” in life; and that Meghan was pushed to the point of suicide after being assaulted repeatedly by Britain’s arch and cruel media. They also disclosed that they sought medical help and public relations protection, but both were denied by Palace officials.
Two days after the interview, the Queen issued a 61-word press release, stating that the family was “saddened” and “concerned” about racism, but raised doubts about the couples’ version of events and said she would deal with it all privately. But the British press, true to form, exploded into a combination of sarcasm, shame, and slander, essentially displaying the rancor that Harry and Meghan described. Prominent broadcaster Piers Morgan was so apoplectic in his trashing of her on-air that he was challenged by his co-host, walked off the show, and resigned.
Their grievances were further illustrated as media around the world drew the parallels between her velvet captivity, described by Meghan as isolation that drove her into depression, and the identically abusive treatment described by Harry’s late mother, Lady Di, in a similar bombshell interview she gave in 1995. Even so, The Daily Telegraph, a Royalist broadsheet, sneered that the Queen’s 61-word statement “was notable both for its brevity and its unwillingness to take the Sussexes’ [Harry and Meghan’s] shocking narrative as gospel.” The Brit-speak translation: In brief, they’re liars.
Obviously, Meghan was always going to be fair game to Fleet Street (the Street of Shame) because she was American, mixed-race, and, like Lady Di, considerably more attractive, warm, and popular than any of the Royals. But this time, the ramifications are far more serious because the interview, pre-taped with Oprah, was timed to air globally the day before Commonwealth Day, on March 8 — an annually designated commemoration of the Commonwealth of Nations, a political association of 54 nations that were formerly territories of the British Empire and populated mostly by people of color.
Queen Elizabeth II is Head of the Commonwealth. As such, she is the Head of State in the United Kingdom and also in 16 former colonies such as Canada and Australia. The Jewel in the Crown has always been India, with 1.366 billion people who paid a great deal of attention to the interview which went viral on its social media and became the most searched item among Indians for 48 hours. The Queen is not the Head of State there, India opted to become a Republic in 1950, but India is a member of the Commonwealth, and notice was paid, given its troubled history. The headline in India’s The Hindustan said it all when it politely asked: “Why is Harry’s son not a Prince?”
In September, Barbados announced plans to remove Queen Elizabeth II as its Head of State to leave behind its colonial past and slavery, and several Caribbean nations such as Jamaica have announced that they will likely follow suit. This interview certainly cinches it. As for the two biggest Commonwealth countries, Australia and Canada where the Queen is Head of State of their constitutional democracies, the reaction was swift but different.
Australians narrowly defeated a referendum to scrap the Monarchy in 1999, and the possibility of a reprise was raised. Former Prime Minister Malcolm noted the interview demonstrated why Australia’s official head of state “should be an Australian citizen, one of us, not the queen or king of the United Kingdom”.
Julian Hill, a Labor Party member of Australia’s Parliament, wrote on Twitter that the royal family’s drama is “irrelevant to modern Australia…Their latest pathetic privileged escapades remind us we need an Australian as Head of State.”
In Canada, polls show growing interest in removing the Queen as Head of State, but extricating the Queen would require a constitutional amendment that would reopen divisions between Quebec and the West and possibly lead to an all-out national crisis and a dissembling of the confederation. That’s why, when asked, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau quickly dismissed it as inappropriate given COVID19.
Most insulting is the Queen’s double standard. She cast doubt on Harry and Meghan’s veracity, and when they announced they would “step back” from their jobs as senior working royals, their security and salaries were stripped immediately. He was also stripped of most of his titles. But the Queen’s son Prince Andrew, after revelations about his dalliances with late pedophile procurer Jeffrey Epstein, were handled differently. After he was accused in 2015 by a woman who said she was groomed by Epstein to have sex with him, he denied allegations and so did Buckingham Palace. In 2019, after Prince Andrew gave a disastrous BBC interview and refused to cooperate with the FBI, he was sacked from responsibilities, lost some income, and disappeared from public view. He and his children have retained their titles.
Also unfair was that days before the Oprah interview, the Palace initiated an investigation into 2018 allegations by former staff that Meghan Markle “bullied” them, which was then leaked to the British press. It was clearly a pre-emptive attack, designed to undermine her credibility.
The House of Windsor is a soap opera, not a ruling family, which guarantees that the sun is going to set more quickly set on what remains of Britain, its Commonwealth, and geopolitical importance. Other negatives include the country’s decision to leave European Union may result in Scotland and Northern Ireland going their own separate ways. Their electorates voted overwhelmingly against Brexit and both could re-join the EU. An independent Scotland would be economically bigger than Hungary, a free Northern Ireland would be the size of Luxembourg or Lithuania, a merger of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland would be economically as big as Belgium, and a “Republic of Celts” including all three would be the size of Poland.
Britain’s drift affects geopolitics too and Brexit is a major reason why Beijing cracked down hard on Hong Kong, abrogating its “one country, two systems” agreement with Britain designed to allow democracy there until 2047.
No matter how hard the Crown attempts to “carry on”, it won’t be business as usual. Harry has refused to divulge the name of the Royal, who raised the issue of his unborn child’s skin color. He told Oprah off camera that it was not the Queen nor Prince Philip which therefore casts permanent suspicion over his father and his brother, the likeliest suspects. Both are heirs to Queen Elizabeth’s Crown and the Commonwealth and both must now “rule” under a cloud along with the Monarchy itself.
My newsletters will arrive in your inbox Monday and Thursday mornings, sometimes more often.
Wrong sorry
Perhaps a little hasty in your judgement and also very much influenced by a West Coast prism I fear. Time will tell probably a different story and the monarchy will survive this as it has done other "difficulties" as it performs a very useful role in constitutional terms by limiting the power that a Prime Minister can dream of. The sociale mores of the " caste" within which the "firm" evolves is something else entirely and can be rightly criticized and this very much includes the minor members of the family.