How such royal splendour must drive home to Harry and Andrew just how much their actions have cost them
FOR a moment the squabbles over uniform seemed unworthy, the saga over insignia an irrelevance. In Westminster Abbey, which has borne witness to truly momentous chapters in Britain’s history, the vanity of Prince Andrew and Prince Harry was reduced to mere petty detail.
In the days since the Queen’s death, there has been a sense of hostilities suspended and grief shared. Equally, in the great church where monarchs are crowned and mourned, there was a powerful reminder that family unity is as important as public affection in binding the monarchy to the nation.
Yesterday was not just about bringing the curtain down on the Elizabethan era, it was also the day when the baton of royal symbolism was passed from a mother to a son.
King Charles has an in- tray bursting with challenging demands, from shoring up a Commonwealth to holding together a fractious United Kingdom. But his first test, and one which may define his reign, is to resolve a family crisis that caused his mother so much heartache in her last years.
No wonder at times yesterday his face seemed so bleak that not even the consoling presence of his beloved wife the Queen Consort could ease his sorrowing. He knows that his role as head of state does not confer upon him an automatic right to be the most popular member of the Royal Family; he knows that affection has to be earned.
But he understands, too, that the synthetic fame represented by California-based Prince Harry and Meghan, with their huge social media following, is corrosive to the long- term well- being of the monarchy. It seems to be built on a misplaced sense of victimhood.
Charles’s hope is that, having been so much part of the spectacular events of the past week and a half, his son finally realises that the qualities of duty and service celebrated in the national outpouring of heartfelt affection for the Queen are the true measure of popularity. It may be a forlorn hope. Allowing it to be made known that having the Queen’s initials removed from his Army uniform when he stood vigil on Saturday night over his grandmother’s coffin has left him devastated, suggests that Harry has not learnt this lesson. It would seem he has still not grasped the consequences of quitting royal life.
His decision to abandon it is why, at the funeral and other key events, he was not permitted to wear the military attire that means so much to him.
At both Windsor and in the Abbey, his face was rigidly fixed on some distant point, a picture of concentration. Yet if he needed any reminder of the life he has surrendered and the part he could have in it, it was all around.
He cannot have failed to have been moved by the pageantry, both solemn and poignant. Nor how each brought the royal traditions of the past into the present day and gave them resonance and meaning.
Harry yesterday was not just mourning the loss of a grandmother — she was also the figure to whom in his anguish he turned as his royal life unravelled. There is no doubt that grandson and monarch had a close bond. The Queen’s staff have told me how, in the early days of Harry’s exile in America, the Queen would excitedly take his phone calls. Over time this changed and she later became perplexed by Harry’s complaints.
His route- one approach infuriated other senior royals but he wasn’t the only one to adopt such
The King’s first test is to resolve this family crisis
No doubt, there is public sympathy for them both
BUT AT LEAST ANDREW HAS GOT THE QUEEN’S CORGIS FOR COMFORT
a strategy. Prince Andrew placed his salvation too in his mother’s hands. Stripped of his military links and patronages and forced to step down from royal duties, he continued to remain close to the Queen, including escorting her in to the Abbey in March for the memorial service to Prince Philip.
There is no doubt that there was some public sympathy for both Andrew and Harry, the only two
close members of the Queen’s family to have seen active service in wartime.
Both men had unquestionably demonstrated considerable bravery, Harry on two occasions in Afghanistan and Andrew as a helicopter pilot in the Falklands War.
But while their courage has never been in doubt, their judgment and common sense have been.
From Charles, who has had to manage the fallout, there has been both anger and sadness. Andrew’s decision to speak to the BBC over the Jeffrey Epstein affair, in which he failed to acknowledge any fault or offer any apology, was viewed by Charles as a monumental act of folly and self-harm.
Harry’s on-going habit of giving interviews as well as his planned memoir has been more personally hurtful.
Charles had welcomed Meghan into the family — famously walking her up the aisle at the royal wedding when her own father was unable to attend.
But their complaints about racism within the family, as well as attacks on the integrity of members of the Royal Household, have wounded him.
When the Royal Family next gathers on such a ceremonial scale as we have witnessed over these days, it will be for King Charles’s Coronation. Where then, and how, will Harry and Meghan feature? And can Andrew expect anything other than a role as a spectator?
For Harry the breathtaking events of the Queen’s obsequies can have left him in no doubt that unless he is prepared to accept the olive branch extended so generously by his father, he is in danger of being written out of the royal story.
He must surely be reflecting, too, on how his brother William has offered reconciliation, standing or marching at his side for all the important events, from the lying-in-state to the funeral. He could so easily be restored to the heart of the family.
There has been awakened in the British people in the past few days a sense, once more, not simply of the past, but of continuity in their country and their way of life. It has been refreshing for many of us to find a way of taking pride in our country.
Yesterday’s events, with their deep echoes of ancient religion, heraldry and tradition, were not just about the continuity of the royal house. They were about the continuity of a nation and its people. Charles is undoubtedly the focus of those feelings but Harry could certainly have a role, should he wish it, in that continuity. It is just possible that everything he has seen has opened his eyes to what his future could be.
As for Prince Andrew who has clung on to every royal privilege — in contrast to his mother’s lack of grandeur and her dignity and modesty — there cannot be a royal future. But he need not be banished from his brother’s kingdom.
Some years ago Charles ruefully said of his brother, then in the middle of some other mishap, that what Andrew really wanted was ‘ to be me’. He suggested to his mother that perhaps the younger prince, who for many years had been heir in line to the throne, should work for him.
In Charles’s patronage as King, might there not be such a role, in which a dutiful Andrew could make amends for mistakes?
He would certainly earn his brother’s undying gratitude if he took it.
Andrew need not be banished from Charles’s kingdom