The popularity of the British monarchy has constantly fluctuated with the successes and scandals brought about every year regarding specific members of the family. More recently, we can look at Prince Andrew, for example, and his involvement in the Epstein scandal, though he is yet to be held accountable. Despite him arguably not being a fair representation of the family, the damage made to the public image was significant and it shifted the narrative around the family. We’ve seen this far more prominently in the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Harry and Meghan, who have provided the biggest source of interest and speculation for royalists and abolitionists alike. However, their sudden move from their traditional, intimate home in London to the celebrity-ridden, flashy Los Angeles has reignited a debate of whether the royal family is a toxic, corrupted and scandal-drenched household or whether it is conversely a structure that maintains dignity, and simply had a pivotal discussion with the couple about their duties and desire in the family.
An eminent motivation for royalists to resent the pair is their patriotism and sense of loyalty to the Queen. Her rule reminds people of the personal sacrifices made by Prince Harry’s predecessors in history and provokes the question of why he feels he is unable to do the same. The legend set by the Queen is one of ultimate devotion and unwavering dedication to the crown so that no obstacles in her personal or emotional agenda should get in the way of fulfilling her duty. This has been demonstrated in multiple occasions such as her alleged marital struggles, problems with her children, attempted interventions by leaders with their own political agendas, but perhaps most valuable to the British public is the fact that she took to the throne at just twenty-seven years old after the trauma of King George VI’s death. Consequently, Queen Elizabeth has set royal standards of commitment overwhelmingly high and this is accompanied by public sentiment about what it takes to lead a nation’s monarchy and what you owe to your citizens. The fact that the family also forms part of a representational structure for the nation more than any other role in British society places all of the pressure on their performative actions and behaviours, so scrutiny is second-nature to members in line of the crown. Our current monarch’s lengthy survival of that scrutiny has possibly rendered the British public to be fairly apathetic towards Meghan and Harry. People almost feel that they owe it to their Queen to defend all the sacrifices she made by compelling the newly-wed couple to complete their royal duties. As a result, there is a tendency to parallel the struggles faced by the couple and previous royals. A common notion is that of ‘they are living on tax payer’s money, inheriting titles and properties left and right, and do not have the weighty fear of being next in line to the throne—what is there to run away from?’.
It is understandable for the citizens under a representational monarchy to care about the leaders who contribute towards the nation’s image on a global scale. However, the disproportionate attacks and controversy around this marriage in particular, and now even more so that they have stepped back from royal duties, provokes the question of why it bothered so many members of the public to have Meghan in the family, and included in our identity that faces the world stage. A fraction of adamant royalists are likely prejudiced in their mentalities. After all, to defend the crown unconditionally and almost nationalistically requires defending their involvement in several problematic and politically controversial interactions with other nations. Meghan is a vulnerable target to act as an outlet for this built up xenophobia and desire to revert to traditionalism; she is mixed-race, American, previously divorced, and an actress whose most successful works were relatively average in critical acclaim. The characterisation of her as a foreign, invasive entity does not exactly come from a place of openness and warm invitation. This deviation from some royalists’ classic image of a member of a monarchy has created a setback in how they chose to react to her coming into the nation and it is occurring similarly with her departure. The Duchess was facing a double-edged sword: if she were to remain in the UK, the racially charged checks on her behaviour and mannerisms would have continued but now that she has left, the media has birthed the notion that she was bound to leave, she never wanted to be British and she resents the country’s patriotism.
We see here, in addition to other prejudices, the fine work of misogyny. Prince Harry, although also under the watchful eye of the press, has never been subjected to the volumes of negative attention received by Meghan. Some may propose the argument that it is only because she is the outsider coming in to the family, so she is naturally going to be a greater topic of conversation. However, it is not easy to defend this stance when you read through a few of the front pages of a tabloid or have a conversation with an old friend. The portrayal of Meghan is that of a manipulative, scheming, and money-motivated actress who is scraping to achieve relevancy. And yet, many choose to ignore the fact that her husband is a capable man who can make his own decisions, so Meghan should not be dehumanised on account of the common misogynistic depiction of women as only incentivised by money and heartless. We also see misogyny in royalist’s attacks on the Duchess through their comparisons of her to Kate Middleton, which is also easy for low-level media to leverage and advertise- comparing their mannerisms, fashion looks, treatments of their husband and even how prepared they were for motherhood. This has reached the extent to which reporters have followed up with former maids or assistants of Meghan and used quotes calling her difficult or impossible to keep contented, all of which effortlessly allow misogynists to villainise her, and victimise Harry.
A huge reason that opinions of the couple are so polarised and multi-faceted is also due to the obscurity around royal affairs. After all, forming an opinion of someone based off of rumours and the spoon-fed descriptions of them in press is difficult and morally skewed. This is in part a fault in the family’s tendency to shut off publicity or statements as soon as scandal or criticism is brewing, so they avoid humiliating accountability. Contrarily, this privacy reserves the integrity of the crown, and reflects how the core of the family refuses to interact with cheap reporting. No matter whether we agree with their public relations strategy, it has undoubtedly made the matter more disorientating and vulnerable to false narratives given that all the members of the British public, who enjoy feeling included in the dynamics of their monarchy, are left to speculate on behalf of the members they feel most loyal to, such as Queen Elizabeth, and assume how she feels about Meghan. The extreme patriots discussed earlier, who are anti-Meghan, come from a perspective that assumes the Queen doesn’t appreciate Meghan and Harry’s breaking of the royal mould. For all we know, she could be overjoyed for the future of their new family and their potential as a flourishing couple. This is also added on top of the media haze that often develops around people in the public eye, where hundreds upon hundreds of sometimes outrageous and untrue articles are published from a variety of sources. Within this, there is the clash of sophisticated versus superficial media as well as the contradictions between politically conservative and politically liberal outlets. Inevitably, we reach a dead end where nothing we are told has any value any more, and the royal family risks fading into irrelevancy if the only image we can attribute it to is that of vague and unreliable reporting. This leaves royalists who strive to keep the monarchy’s value alive in a phase of confusion, because the marriage of the unlikely couple Meghan and Harry has been used as a tool to divide British society, and even the global audience, even further than it already is.
Perhaps the interview the couple is doing with Oprah Winfrey this Sunday (the 7th of March) will help rid ourselves of some of this haze and clarify where our opinions stand on the couple’s recent move, but we must equally be vigilant of the fact that it is all too easy for anything they say in the extensive interview to be taken out of context to fulfil the political agenda of both royalists and abolitionists, or to gain profit from passive and susceptible readers in everyday media. In the meantime, it is safe to advise each other to stay away from cheap, destructive sources of news, namely the Daily Mail, the Sun, and Hello!, given that no matter which complicated stance you take, nothing they inform you about will maturely or justly enrich your preconceptions of the couple.
