Royals can’t just walk away
Harry and Meghan have a responsibility to fulfill,
On a day when the world — especially here in Canada — had no shortage of far more shattering and sombre news with the Ukrainian jetliner crash, a surprise announcement by Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, still managed to eat up some major headlines.
The couple had decided, they said in a statement posted on Instagram, to “step back as ‘senior’ members of the Royal Family” and “work to become financially independent” while continuing to “fully support Her Majesty the Queen.”
After a recent scenic and private holiday in Canada to reflect on what the duchess had already bravely admitted in one interview last fall was an emotionally unsustainable existence at least for her, battling tabloids and tradition, the couple is royally revectoring.
They announced their plan to carve out a new existence for themselves and their baby son, Archie, living in both North America and U.K., but still somehow when royal duty makes it necessary, dipping into the royal till.
Tell me, what does “financially independent” mean to the rest of the economically struggling world when he has already inherited millions and she earned her considerable wealth as an actress?
Hmm. I think I get it and like the Queen, I don’t much care for it.
Instead of divorcing each other after a short turbulent time, Harry and Meghan are divorcing their duty.
Was this a brave, smart and self-congratulatory “progressive” move to reshape the monarchy or a stunningly tone deaf disregard for what the Royal Family really is — an archaic and struggling institution that needs their complete loyalty, hard work and help to survive?
The terse pushback from Buckingham Palace, which hadn’t apparently been informed that the “we’re outa here statement” was about to drop, was immediate and frosty.
A Buckingham Palace spokesperson said discussions with the couple on their decision were “at an early stage,” and: “We understand their desire to take a different approach, but these are complicated issues that will take time to work through.”
What does the nonroyal we think? While I would do anything not to be on the same page as that odious British media scold Piers Morgan, who predictably harrumphed along with other pundits with their knickers in a knot that “their royal hustlers” should be fired immediately — Piers, they are not Bonnie and Clyde — I do think Harry and Meghan either selfishly or in desperate self-preservation are demanding to have it both ways.
After all, why have a Royal Family at all, which is supposed to represent duty as well as privilege, if you can walk away just from the bits you don’t like anytime at all? That’s not how the institution survives.
As the “Economist” noted in 2018 when the Duke and Duchess wed, “more successfully than any other institution on the planet, the royals have combined medieval grandeur and constitutional significance with celebrity appeal.”
It was her induction into British Royalty — and the admirably fresh modern qualities she brought to it — that made Markle one of the biggest celebrities in the world. She was nowhere near that on her own.
An appealing, articulate, but by no means top tier American actress, Markle was already a committed philanthropist and had written eloquently about the challenges of being biracial — the daughter of a white (now estranged) father and a Black mother.
As I wrote when they became engaged, in agreeing to marry Harry — fragile because of his own upbringing, the shocking death in a car crash of his mother Diana when he was 12 — Meghan knowingly signed on to a job as well as a marriage.
Unless Harry’s older brother William and his three children were freakishly wiped out, Harry would never accede to the throne but that didn’t mean his taxpayer-supported role as one of the most popular royals was insignificant.
In an interview the engaged couple gave at the time, Harry enthused he was adding “another team player as part of the bigger team.”
He had no doubt Markle would be “really unbelievably good at the job part of it,” a realization that came to him as “a huge relief.”
Meghan for her part committed to the “boots on the ground” part of the job.
So the fairly tale was always grounded in how much good they could do together in the world speaking out on issues — like mental health and improving the lives of girls and women — that mattered to both of them.
The bigotry that Meghan has encountered is reprehensible, as was the intrusion into private areas of her life. All the same, it should not have been a reason to cut and run. Think of Barack Obama and the racism he and his wife Michelle endure to this day as a twice duly elected American president. You get on with it.
The British royalty system is dodgy, I will agree with that. But until it’s constitutionally done away with, there are certain rules you follow, not starchy silverware and tiara ones, but unflinching loyalty to the idea of the monarchy and to whomever currently wears the Crown. In this era of course, it’s Harry’s granny, Elizabeth, the longest-serving and most popular monarch in history.
I see no reason to blame Markle, who has conducted herself with more dignity and class than several to the palaceborn Royal Family members.
But to herald this announcement and plan as their laudable break for freedom — “Diana would be so proud,” as one sentimental tweet had it — is to entirely miss the point.
Hey you two. Grow up and get on with it. Or boots-on-the-ground “financial independence” will be yours way sooner than you think.
That’s what happens when you walk away from your job.