Sussexes' interview was damaging, but the monarchy will prevail
THE ROYAL FAMILY HAS FACED BIGGER TESTS THAN THIS
Beneath a soft blanket of Californian therapy-speak, the Sussexes were on vicious attack mode. Everyone — except the Queen — was a target. Prince Charles, Prince William, the Duchess of Cambridge, unnamed members of the Royal Family and royal advisers, the press ...
All of them are guilty, guilty, guilty — of not having the warmth, goodness and openness of the Sussexes. There was bombshell after bombshell. A regular theme was that, every time something was said by the press to be Meghan's fault, it was apparently someone else's fault. So it wasn't Kate who was reduced to tears by Meghan before the Sussexes' wedding. No — it was Kate who made Meghan cry but did the right thing: “She owned it, and she apologized.”
There were allegations of racism and the very sad revelation that the Duchess had had suicidal thoughts — “I just didn't want to be alive anymore.” But, again and again, the suggestion was that the only people in real pain were the Sussexes.
To some, this will be seen as a deeply damaging program for the Royal Family. Millions of viewers, particularly younger “woke” ones, will side with Harry and Meghan. But while the Twitterati may be up in arms, the broad sway of British opinion will cleave to the heart of the Royal Family — the Queen. How modest and short her Commonwealth Day message was on Sunday. She praised the “selfless dedication to duty ... demonstrated in every Commonwealth nation.” She has demonstrated that selfless duty ever since she came to the throne 69 years ago. The British public know this. They respect her for it.
The Queen has never given an interview in her 94 years. Harry and Meghan have given two interviews within a month to two of the biggest names in American television: Oprah Winfrey and James Corden. Even Princess Diana had been married for 14 years before her explosive Panorama interview in 1995.
The Queen's greatest PR message is the power of silence. The tactic works like a charm, but only the Queen, it seems, realizes this. Princess Diana, Prince Charles and, most recently, Prince Andrew have all made disastrous errors in TV tell-alls.
In 1988, Prince Charles asked the late Sir Peregrine Worsthorne, then editor of The Sunday Telegraph, how he should conduct his public life. Perry said Charles should confine himself to public duties and never air his private thoughts. The prince buried his head in his hands, moaning, “But then I'm just a cipher.”
Perry was right. Royal interviews by disaffected family members are big box office — but they are only ever harmful to all concerned. Over the next few weeks, it will be the Royal Family who take a battering over the latest revelations. But history tells us that the Sussexes' attacks will have less and less traction as time goes by.
Like all other members not in the direct line of succession, they will drift further and further from the action. Prince Harry was born third in line to the throne; he is now sixth.
The Sussexes are now detached from royal life. There'll be no sign of them on state occasions; no more sightings of Harry in his dashing uniforms, now he's lost his military role. It is clear the Sussexes have made the full migration from Royal to Californian celebrity.
Harry has begun to speak California psychobabble: “I'm not comfortable with sharing that.” California speak is also a tremendous device for masking hypocrisy and this will slowly be unmasked. Thus Meghan saying that all she wants to do is to “live authentically,” while feeding her chickens — oh yes, and broadcasting to billions, too, and picking up multi-million dollar paycheques.
There will be a few weeks of torrid headlines. Any dirty linen will have its staining effect. As the Victorian constitutional writer Walter Bagehot wrote, “(Royalty's) mystery is its life. We must not let in daylight upon magic.” The Diana interview in 1995 certainly let in bucketfuls of daylight — and the royal magic temporarily declined as a result. But it came back — as it always does.
A big chunk of that magic has now been chopped away by the Sussexes. But the monarchy, and the Queen, will prevail. In a far greater crisis for the Royal Family, Edward VIII's abdication in 1936, the very institution seemed at threat. Parliament and the country at large were transfixed. The monarchy survived. The two protagonists sloped off to France and by the time the Duke and Duchess of Windsor gave their own bombshell TV interview in 1969, they had become a melancholy, if charming, sideshow to the main story — then, as now, the Queen.
On the sad day the Queen dies, that situation could change. Who else can command the dignity and respect she inspires? Prince Charles, who carried out his own embarrassing interview with Jonathan Dimbleby in 1994, admitting his infidelity, failed to learn the lesson that silence is golden. The memory of Diana still runs deep and is being replayed for a new generation in the latest series of The Crown.
For now, the respect and admiration the nation feels for the Queen and her dedication to her duty will carry the family through. For all the noise today, this latest turbulent chapter in the Royal Family's story will only be a page in the history books of tomorrow.
THE RESPECT AND ADMIRATION FOR THE QUEEN WILL CARRY THE FAMILY THROUGH.