At the beginning of this year, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle stepped down from their royal duties to pursue a private life. Although they intended to find some middle ground between royal and real life, Harry’s grandmother, Queen Elizabeth II, gave them an ultimatum, and they opted to step down.
Many people, especially in North America were shocked by this news and continue to follow the story, eagerly awaiting some clear answers. The fact that the Daily Mail has published several stories per day regarding the status of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex is indicative of some semblance of interest.
The British royal family has often been a source of entertainment for citizens of the commonwealth and others alike. This entertainment factor derives mostly from a nostalgia of a bygone era of kings and queens, princes and princesses, and the inability of the British Royal Family to adjust to the times. While there has been a sluggish advance into the modern era the Royal Family remains archaic in its values. There was a time when their institution controlled nearly a quarter of the world and now, the matriarch seems incapable of even controlling her family. And I wish to pose something: this idea of scandal within the ranks is not new. It has always been present and, unless there is some shift in values, it always will be.
While Harry and Meghan’s revolt may seem shocking, to many Brits this occurrence seems to return like the seasons. Looking back one can find at least one disillusioned royal per generation who wished to break from the ranks and ruffle some feathers: from Harry’s father Charles divorcing his first wife and the affairs by both parties, to his Uncle Andrew (who on top of the Jeffrey Epstein debacle, was renowned in his youth for enjoying himself a little too much in the public eye) in the more recent years. Before them there was Princess Margaret, the Queen’s late sister, who caused “problems” by marrying a bisexual photographer and subsequently divorcing him. Not to mention her actions themselves which included lavish parties and resulted in a Labour MP describing her as “a floosie”. Even further back, right at the start of the 20th century, there was King Edward VI who abdicated his throne to marry the American divorcee Wallace Simpson (in tandem with this he had some questionable war time affiliations and friendships).
What I mean to pose in laying this out is that in every generation of the Royal Family there is one who is raised to become the Crown, who must at some point in their life hold their country’s history on their shoulders. And there is so very often another who is raised as the subservient, a back-up plan, who more often than not will be known solely for their relation to their sibling and little else. They spend their life as so many younger siblings do in the shadow of another and seek desperately to make a name for themselves. Where that fails, they attempt to lead a normal life, away from their family, which is regarded more often than not as a rebellion. Being born into such a public and regimented institution is by no means without psychological burden. And yet decade on decade people seem surprised when this happens.
With each generation of Royal-rebel there seems to be an evolution. With Edward and Margaret, the acceptance of divorce and second marriages, with Charles the permittance of marriage outside of the conventional circles, and now with Harry we have seen the first introduction of a person of colour and a North American into the Royal Family. This is far from praiseworthy, being around a century late, and indeed is indicative of the backwards nature of the family. But these instances do serve a purpose in the eyes of many to normalise and, in a public manner, accept change. So, it must be said that what we are seeing here with the former Duke and Duchess of Sussex has happened before and will happen again unless there is some change, but change is a concept that their family has a rather difficult time accepting.
This leads to another point regarding the abdication of the Sussexes and that is their choice. On the face of it, it does seem noble and nouveau. The Prince is stepping down to stop the tabloids doing to his wife what they did to his mother – a public lynching. It is a step away from the scrutiny of his family and the nation, and for the first time in his life, to control his own destiny. It all sounds very lovely and praiseworthy. That is until some government, likely the Canadian one at this point in time, receives a not insubstantial invoice of £7.6 million (or $13.1 million) for their security expenses. While they seem to have been “cut off” so to speak from the house of Windsor, it seems they have no problem in leaving the bill for someone else.
Now, yes, they are being commended for deciding to pay off the refurbishments they had done on Frogmore Cottage, their former abode in the UK, at the expense of taxpayers (around £3 million/$5.2 million). However, this seems rather trivial given the cost of the aforementioned security expenses. On top of this they will still be receiving in all likelihood an income, while not from the Queen herself, from Harry’s Father and from the various properties they own.
So, while they ought to be admired for their decision to live their own lives and stand up to the outrageous scrutiny they have been victims to, we mustn’t fall into the trap of believing that they are revolutionary in this manner, as it has been done before. But most important to keep in mind, is that this excommunication from the family will in no way render them destitute and helpless on the streets of Canada. Whilst no longer royalty, they aren’t, and never will be, leading conventional or normal lives