Frustrations rooted in Di’s life
Harry not wrong to seek new role, but can’t snub family, nor they him, writes
On September 6, 1997, the remarkable funeral of Diana, Princess of Wales, took place in Westminster Abbey. The most controversial bit was the eulogy by the Princess’ brother, Earl Spencer. It was eloquent, and sometimes angry.
Lord Spencer described his sister as “someone with a natural nobility who was classless and who proved in the last year that she needed no royal title to continue to generate her particular brand of magic”. In the presence of her coffin, he spoke to her: “I pledge that we, your blood family, will do all we can to continue the imaginative and loving way in which you were steering these two exceptional young men so that their souls are not simply immersed by duty and tradition, but can sing openly as you planned.”
Thanks to Lord Spencer, I was in the congregation. So furious was he about press treatment of his sister he had banned all tabloid editors from attending. The broadsheet editors (at the time, I was editing the Daily Telegraph) were not axed, since our titles were thought to have behaved better.
Diana’s persecution by the media was a central theme of her brother’s address: “She talked endlessly of getting away from England, mainly because of the treatment that she received at the hands of the newspapers.” Although named after the Roman goddess of hunting, she was “the most hunted person of the modern age”.
I remember my mixed feelings as I sat listening to his incendiary words.
On the one hand, I agreed. I was working with him behind the scenes to push our trade towards kinder treatment and better rules for royal coverage. I had seen how much both sides in the “war of the Waleses” had suffered from media intrusion. On the other hand, I thought Lord Spencer was demanding the impossible. How could the two princes, at that time second and third in line to the throne, ever “sing openly”? What if their songs did not harmonise with the deeper music of the monarchy itself?
The current clash between the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and the wider royal set-up reflects Lord Spencer’s position. The danger is it will end with the same acrimony, although the divorce of the heir to the throne, and Diana’s subsequent tragic death, was a much bigger story than the current difficulties of her younger son. World-famous though Prince Harry is, he is now only sixth in line to the throne. Three of those above him are of the generation below him. Probably never in history has the dynasty been better mapped out.
In the strange statement the Sussexes put out on Wednesday and on their new website called Sussex Royal, all the old Spencer preoccupations are there. There is the deep dislike of the media (“frequent misreporting”; “false impressions”); the idea that their “working model” is different and, by implication, better, than normal royal duties (“progressive new role”; “stepping back” from other senior royals); the error that the impact of anyone in the system can be successfully separated from royal status. There is even a rearticulation of Diana’s desire to get out of England: “We now plan to balance our time between the United Kingdom and North America.”
Some of their ideas might be manageable, and some, such as making more of the Commonwealth role, might well be good. But all are damaged because they were announced without consultation with the people above them in the royal hierarchy whose co-operation is essential for success. The Duke and Duchess declare that: “Their commitment to Her Majesty the Queen is unwavering.” Prince Harry has always displayed this commitment in the past, but his latest move seems a funny way of showing it.
Then comes the question of money. The Sussexes want to achieve what they call “financial independence”. They believe they could do this if they were free to earn money for professional activity while retaining some element of the Sovereign Grant, and the money from the Duchy of Cornwall (in effect controlled by the Prince of Wales) which at present pays for 95 per cent of their spending.
Here the institution really digs in its heels. There is an unhappy history — Prince Edward and showbusiness, for example — of members of the royal family trying to pursue their own careers. This has quickly come up against the accusation that they are exploiting royal status for gain.
This does not really apply to a clear, salaried profession. Both princes were paid the usual salaries when they were in the Armed Forces. No one objected that this was putting monarchy up for sale.
But the famous “convening power” which leading royals possess must not be monetised. Then they become hired “influencers”.
If the Duke of Sussex were to continue many of his royal duties, but also earn money for legitimate professional services, what could those services be? Those at the top of the monarchical system cannot see a satisfactory answer. This is part of the reason for Prince Harry’s frustration and part of the explanation for his website outburst.
So is there any way through all this? At the time of the marriage of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle in 2018, I felt pretty enthusiastic. Their commitment seemed so heartfelt and his gifts of connection with all sorts of people are so great.
I am stuffy myself, but I felt a little isolated among my stuffier friends. Most said they thought the thing would never work. Just now, their cynicism is beginning to look vindicated. But I still believe it need not be. The Sussexes have made their own lives — and those of his royal relations — unnecessarily difficult; but they are nevertheless on to something. It is, in essence, generational.
Not only Prince Harry, but also his elder brother the Duke of Cambridge, have long believed the monarchy should allow more room for its younger members to engage in issues of public concern. The great danger here is getting into politics and culture wars, about which princes (and princesses) tend to be naive.
But if you think about something like Heads Together, the mental health campaign which the Cambridges and — before his marriage — Prince Harry, led, you will see the uniquely powerful effect of royal intervention in prompting public discussion. Such discussion probably cannot be led by people who, like Prince Charles, are over 70. Similarly, might it not be possible to devise a leadership job for Prince Harry in which he could draw attention, via the Commonwealth (paid for by all Commonwealth member states), to an important set of issues, such as the education of poor children, child health, clean water? His impact could bring global benefit. It was notable this week that Buckingham Palace moved fast from an immediate, understandable expression of “hurt” to a desire to get these issues sorted out “in days not weeks”. It is a wonderful, secure thing that we have a great monarch who has reigned for nearly 68 years and an heir to the throne who has already reached his biblical life-span.
But it does also mean that the rising generation gets less of a look-in, and that could lead to the monarchy losing touch. If at all possible, a reconciliation should be found to avoid squandering an asset like Harry.
Some of their ideas might be manageable, and some . . . might well be good. But all are damaged because they were announced without consultation . . .