ONE IS NOT AMUSED
Queen ‘upset and sad’ over Harry and Meghan row
THE Queen was said to be “upset and saddened” last night after an extraordinary bout of feuding over the future of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
Her frustration was made clear after Harry and Meghan were criticised for releasing a statement stressing their disappointment at her refusal to allow them to use the word “royal” in their business and charity activities.
As critics rounded on the couple and accused them of being “petulant and passive aggressive,” royal sources said the Queen had tried her best to accommodate them while maintaining the reputation of the monarchy.
A source close to the Royal Family said yesterday: “She’s just extremely disappointed that it’s turned out like this. I think she is upset and saddened by it all”. Yesterday the Queen, 93, appeared tired as she rode alone in the back of a chauffeur-driven car to a chapel in Windsor.
The bitter feuding was made public on Friday when Harry and Meghan posted a hostile statement on their website which was widely attacked for being discourteous to the Queen.
Ordered to drop the word royal from their Sussex Royal brand the couple appeared to hit back, saying the Queen did not have a monopoly on the word. The statement read: “While there is not any jurisdiction by the monarchy or Cabinet Office over the use of the word ‘royal’ overseas, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex do not intend to use Sussex Royal or any iteration of the word royal in any territory, either within the UK or otherwise when the transition occurs spring 2020.” The couple have insisted on keeping their HRH titles, although they have vowed not to actively use them.
It is understood the ban on using
the word royal was made after the Queen’s advisers consulted lawyers.
Harry and Meghan spent a small fortune developing the Sussex Royal brand and the economic impact is likely to be huge.
After initial fury inside the Royal Family over the couple’s decision to jump the gun and announce their plan to quit their public duties before it had been agreed, the Queen set out to accommodate the couple.
Her Majesty, who had admonished them for their behaviour towards staff at times, had also tried to keep them happy last year.
In Windsor she regularly popped around to see them at Frogmore Cottage.
When they said they wanted to quit she was keen to find a compromise that would keep them within the fold. But despite an early intention to cut a generous deal, it quickly became apparent that it was just not possible for the Sussexes to do what they wanted and stay within the fold.
There was at least one topic where both sides agreed – a decision that leaves the taxpayer with a possible £6million a year bill to protect the couple and their son Archie.
Harry and Meghan will keep their team of SAS-trained Scotland Yard bodyguards when their public duties cease in a few weeks.
The couple said in a statement: “It is agreed that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will continue to require effective security to protect them and their son.
“This is based on the Duke’s public profile by virtue of being born into the Royal Family, his military service, the Duchess’s own independent profile, and the shared threat and risk level documented specifically over the last few years.”
Experts agree that only the Metropolitan Police’s close protection officers are up to the job.
They have access to the latest intelligence from MI5, MI6 and other intelligence agencies.
They also get regular updates from the Fixated Threat Assessment Centre which monitors royal stalkers.
The couple’s statement also said: “As the grandson of Her Majesty and second son of The Prince of Wales, Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex, remains sixth in line to the throne of the British monarchy and the order of precedence is unchanged.”
JUST after the war, the austere Labour Prime Minister Clement Attlee told one of his party’s most garrulous intellectuals: “A period of silence from you would be welcome.” Exactly the same words should now be used by the Queen in response to the increasingly petulant Duke and Duchess of Sussex.
Since they announced in January that they wanted to “step back” from royal life, Prince Harry and Meghan have kept up a tiresome running commentary on the melodrama they have created, continually mixing narcissism with self-pity and hypocrisy.
They bleat about the burdens of their status, yet still demand its privileges. They say they yearn for privacy from media intrusion, yet seem intent on setting themselves up as global celebrities. They shy away from official duties, yet seek to trade on their royal fame.
Over recent weeks, the patience of the British public with this couple has been sorely tested. But this weekend, Harry and Meghan plumbed new depths of misplaced grievance, following the decision by the Palace that they could not use the term “Royal” in their commercial activities. That move was absolutely correct. The monarchy is a cherished symbol of our national identity, not a brand to be exploited for grubby personal gain.
BUT all too predictably, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex reacted with fury. On their official website, they put out an extraordinary statement which had the presumption to give the Queen a constitutional lecture, denying she had any right to impose this restriction.
“While there is not any jurisdiction over the use of the word ‘Royal’ overseas, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex do not intend to use ‘Sussex Royal’,” they said. Such language was both breathtakingly arrogant and politically inaccurate. The use of the term “Royal” is invariably dependent on the will of the sovereign and the British Government, otherwise it is meaningless.
Harry and Meghan’s dubious claim was deeply insulting to the Queen, not only as the monarch but also as a grandmother. It is a bizarre strategy to attack the most revered figure in the country, whose entire reign has been the epitome of uncomplaining diligence.
The contrast between the self-sacrifice of the Queen and the self-indulgence of the Sussexes could hardly be greater. In a famous broadcast in April 1947 as Princess Elizabeth, she declared: “My whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service.” During her 68 years on the throne, she has certainly lived up to that pledge.
Meghan and Harry lasted just 18 months as a royal couple before they gave up. If they had genuinely been unable to cope, then their retreat from the public gaze would have been respected, particularly given Harry’s self-confessed problems fuelled by the circumstances of his mother’s death.
But a quiet life as private citizens seems to have little appeal. They are eager to set up an alternative, North American court to promote their fashionable progressive agenda, while amassing a fortune.
As Harry and Meghan’s estrangement from the Royal Family deepens, there is an unpleasant whiff of entitlement about their actions. They try to cover this up by posing as victims of harassment from a stuffy, even bigoted establishment and a vicious press.
But this is just more deceit. When they married in May 2018, there was tremendous affection towards them. Far from serving as an agent of racism, Meghan’s bi-racial background was welcomed as an emblem of a changing, modern, diverse Britain. In this paper, I wrote that “a mood of profound humanity enveloped the wedding, infused with inclusivity and generosity”.
YET the Sussexes have now squandered most of that goodwill. They had a golden opportunity to strengthen the monarchy, but instead they leave behind a legacy of hostility and division.
What is particularly sad is the dramatic transformation in Prince Harry. The fun-loving, warm-hearted, heroic soldier is now the dreary social justice warrior, his rascally charm supplanted by introspection.
Just as disturbingly, the couple’s hopes of global influence and riches could all be selfdelusion. Beyond their crumbling royal associations, they may not have much to offer.
There is no crisis for the monarchy. With the Queen at the helm and the line of succession secure, the throne’s future is safe. The real crisis could be faced by Meghan and Harry if they cannot overcome their bitterness to their family.
‘It is a bizarre strategy to attack the most revered figure in Britain’