Harry and Meghan: what price their independence?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/11/harry-and-meghan-what-price-their-independence

Version 0 of 1.

The consequences of the couple’s decision to bail out of the family firm must still be worked out

When in the 1990s Prince Charles and palace advisers started the process of slimming down the royal family’s entourage and hangers-on, they could not have imagined that natural wastage rather than active culling would have reduced the inner core quite so suddenly and drastically. First Prince Andrew, now Harry and Meghan, within a couple of months, though for entirely different reasons.

Less than two years ago the future of the family firm seemed assured, a seamless progression from the old guard to a new generation, with two aces in the pack: princes William and Harry with their respective spouses. The second-in-line was dutiful and calm, perhaps even boring in his distinctly middle-aged, balding demeanour, while the younger brother made up in charm and raciness what his brother lacked in excitement. To cap it all, Harry was marrying an American actress of dual heritage – perfect product placement as well as a genuine love match – to keep the Windsors up with the ethnic and cultural diversity of contemporary society.

Oh dear. Nineteen months on, Harry and Meghan are bailing out, overwrought and seemingly suddenly dreading the prospect of a lifetime in a bubble of privilege and publicity. Yesterday, fingers were pointing at Meghan for buckling, not being able to take it, not being a trouper, not understanding, in the patronising words of the Daily Express, that being a royal is not like being a celebrity (although, actually, it is).

The media consensus was that they should be getting on with the job, of which boredom is an inescapable part: as the royal biographer AN Wilson said, it’s not royalty’s job to be exciting.

The couple largely blamed the tabloids for their disenchantment, though the royal correspondents, as opposed to columnists, on their papers have not behaved particularly badly and nowhere near as obtrusively as they did with the prince’s mother – unless, that is, you think any criticism of royalty is presumptuous. As Enoch Powell said of politicians and the press, it’s like a sailor blaming the weather. Or, as the Duke of Edinburgh once said, stoically: “You cope. One does.”

That is not to say that sneers have not hovered about the flaring nostrils of some dedicated royal watchers. You can easily substitute American and dual heritage for American and twice-married divorcee from the time of the abdication crisis 84 years ago. Like his great-great uncle Edward VIII, Harry would probably never have dropped out but for the love of Meghan.

The decision was both precipitous, if palace advisers are to be believed, and not thought through: ignoring advice to hold off and think further. How can the potential consequences now be worked out? How can Harry and Meghan play a full part in the royal routine on a part-time basis, unless they become the Duke and Duchess of Frequent Flying? How can they earn their own money, sufficient to be independent, unless Meghan goes back on set and Harry is hired out to the highest bidder? Prince Charles, who largely underwrites Harry’s income from Duchy of Cornwall revenues, is promising to tighten the purse strings if his son’s commitment to royal duties is halved – a threat that proved successful when Princess Margaret gave up her love for Peter Townsend in the 1950s in order not to lose her title or civil list money.

If the Sussexes’ independence comes at the price of a rumoured secret deal with Disney it will be the apotheosis of the Magic Kingdom. What happens when a royal commitment interferes with a client’s contractual imperative? And how will it look to the public if Harry forgoes opening a hospital in Lancing for a celebrity engagement in LA? These are genuine concerns: a sense of entitlement is the quickest way to kill public enthusiasm for royalty.

At its most basic, how will the costs be divvied up? Boris Johnson, or other members of the royal family, will not stump up for the recent renovation of Frogmore Cottage, but what of the security cost of protecting the couple in Canada or southern California? Will it be contracted out to the Mounties, or Los Angeles police? And if it is still handled by the Metropolitan police at enormous cost, how do those responsibilities square with local law enforcement?

The royals, never slow to take offence, were insistent that the couple’s plans had not been properly discussed and that the Queen and Prince Charles had been bounced by the announcement, apparently pre-empted by a story in the modern court circular that is the Sun. It is never a good look not to confide in your gran, especially when she’s head of the family.

Yesterday, Graham Smith, of the pressure group Republic, was celebrating the forthcoming decline of the institution: its troubles can only get worse, he said.

But predictions of its imminent demise may be premature. Harry, as sixth in line, was never going to be king, short of a catastrophe. Even if the Queen dies tomorrow (heaven forbid) the succession is assured: Charles III will be succeeded by William V and George VII unless there is a major swing of public opinion. Harry’s absence will leave a gap in the royal rota plans; maybe fewer events will be attended. They have coped before: the idea of royals as dutiful public servants is comparatively recent, only dating back to Victoria and Albert, though it has been a powerful brand.

What of Harry and Meghan? They will get their way but may find it colder and less esteemed on the outside. He will go down in royal circles as a bolter, like Edward VIII, who sacrificed the concepts of service and dedication – the strongest suits in the royal hand – for the woman he loved.

Stephen Bates is the author of Royalty Inc: Britain’s Best-Known Brand (Aurum Press)