Royal split may cause ‘ lasting damage’ to family
Expert looks at impact of Harry and Meghan’s decision to step back as senior Royals and move to the US
THE COST of personal happiness for the exiled Duke and Duchess of Sussex may have been lasting damage to the Royal “brand”, a Yorkshire academic said last night.
Exactly a year after Harry and Meghan announced they were stepping back as senior Royals to become financially independent, their flight drew comparisons with the estranged Edward VIII in the aftermath of the abdication crisis.
The anniversary of their split has been marked by claims from within their camp that the Duke and Duchess do not regret their decision to relocate to California, where they have bought a £ 10.8m estate in an area that is also home to Gwyneth Paltrow and Oprah Winfrey.
But Dr Andy Mycock, Reader in politics at Huddersfield University and an expert on Royal affairs, said the repercussions for the family were only just beginning to become apparent. “The one thing that has damaged Harry’s brand more than anything is that the Royal family, if it’s defined by anything, is defined by the principle of service to the people and the nation,” Dr Mycock said. “His decision to move to the United States can be seen by some as an abrogation of that.” The split had made it inconceivable for Harry and Meghan to be one day welcomed back into the fold, he added.
“I can’t imagine that the Royal family is particularly keen on reintegrating them. They never had a significant constitutional role. And in a year that has been defined by the pandemic, their style of celebrity Royalty would not have felt appropriate anyway.
“In fact, the monarchy has probably found it much easier not to have the issue of an unhappy Prince in the newspapers, distracting attention from what it would see as the more important work of representing the people during an extreme time.
“So it’s hard to argue that they have been missed here in Britain.”
The Sussexes’ move to the US has a precedent in the relocation of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, following Edward’s abdication in 1936 and before they eventually settled in France.
Dr Mycock said: “They too found that the celebrity lifestyle suited them better than Royal life. And neither couple was really missed in the UK.” However, Harry and Meghan’s break from tradition has gone some way towards winning them the seclusion they craved.
Last month, the couple won a privacy case against a paparazzi agency which took photographs of their infant son, Archie, in a Canadian park.
But at the same time they have been active with their own media outlets, signing a deal with Netflix, forming a production company and hosting their own podcast.
The first edition, released in time for New Year’s Eve, featured contributions from Archie and from Elton John.
“In terms of their personal life they’re in a much better position in California, where they’re nowhere near as visible or as relevant to the British press,” Dr Mycock said.
“So in that sense they have succeeded. And the various
media deals they have signed have perhaps made them more influential in the US than over here.”
The Royal historian Robert Lacey told People magazine that Harry had long felt marginalised by his brother, William, in the line of succession, and had now “asserted his own identity”.
The magazine also quoted “insiders” as saying the couple had not harboured second thoughts about their breakaway.
But Dr Mycock said it had robbed the Royal family of the modernising influence the Duchess might have brought.
“The monarchy has skirted around the question of whether it is an institution that needs reform – and if so, whether it was the kind of reform that Harry and Meghan were offering,” he said. “Whatever that was, it’s unlikely that William will see reform in the same way as his brother.”
I can’t imagine the Royal family is keen on reintegrating them. Dr Andy Mycock, Reader in politics at Huddersfield University.