Royal Flush - That Interview

Normally, I take little interest in the royal family. If I am honest, I think that the concept of a royal family belongs to an age gone by, and that only an immature society will want to continue such a way of organising ourselves. Putting it more unkindly, who wants to be a ‘subject’ of a freak show rather than citizen of a country? Having said that, I think that any transition to a republic would have to be gradual and very well thought out.

On this occasion, however, it is difficult not to have an opinion about the most recent crisis for the Windsors. To see Harry and Meghan on American TV giving an account of both racist attitudes and a neglect of mental health was shocking even by royal standards. That the problem of mental health should reappear after all the publicity surrounding Diana is quite incredible.

There seem to be two main camps, and most people are opting for one or the other. Camp A says that Harry and Meghan are over-reacting to the situation and that Meghan is something of a prima donna. This view has been fostered by the media for some time before the interview. Camp A will be the natural position for people who are devoted to the royal family, people who think that Black Lives Matter is an over-reaction, and people who think that American actresses are probably all a bit precious.

Camp B says that there is a real problem within the royal family regarding both racism and attitudes to mental health. This will be a natural position for anyone who has suffered either racism or mental health problems and had these things played down, people with an antipathy to the royal family and to the British class system generally, and people who see an unfortunate link with the Diana situation. It is not surprising that people in ethnic minority groups will tend to believe Meghan – they know how racist attitudes are conveyed under the radar on a daily basis.

There might be a middle ground, let us call it Camp C, which says that there is no smoke without a fire and that Harry and Meghan do have some cause for complaint, but that they have probably gone about it the wrong way and should have made more effort to address the issues outside the public realm.

I would place myself firmly in Camp B. This is not simply because I have no love for the Windsors but also because of the overall context of racism – and indeed, sexism – which continues in our society (witness the Panorama programme on Monday hosted by Naga Munchetty). This means that, while I have no way of knowing exactly who said what to whom and in what way, it is reasonable for me to believe that racist attitudes prevail in the royal family just in the same way as they exist elsewhere, and perhaps more so.

As for racism in the media, the evidence lies in the underlying chauvinism that one reads in papers like the Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail and Sun. There is a narrative that one reads in these papers that British people of all identities – race, gender, religion, sexuality – should not complain and should be glad of living in such a wonderful country. They have a view of ‘Britishness’ which defies diversity and change. I don’t know which British people they have in mind, but I do not identify with them.

My view of these papers is, to put it rudely, that I would rather buy my toilet paper without the crap already on it! The country is wonderful only when it is open to debate, when we listen to people’s experiences, and when we acknowledge when we have got it wrong, not when conversations of this kind are closed down.

If you want my opinion of what actually happened, I suggest that Harry’s comments and other glimpses into the royals over the years suggest that the royal family is a very restrictive place to live and work. There is an expectation that people will behave in certain ways dictated by tradition as mediated by a host of officials and that a very small elite – primarily the monarch and the immediate heirs to the throne – have seniority and are probably the only ones who have the right to suggest changes to the way things work.

I am the eldest child but have no jurisdiction over my younger brother and sister (shame, but there we are!). I suspect that this is not the case for William and Harry, and that a ranking of seniority between them extends to their wives as well. The silence of William and Kate in this whole affair is the one that speaks volumes. Despite the fact that the royal family prefer to keep silent over internal matters, a kind word in public by either William or Kate might have helped the situation. But it has not come, and it seems that the relationship between William, Kate, Harry, and Meghan is at the heart of these problems, with Charles avoiding emotional involvement as he did with Diana. I think that William and Kate wanted Harry and Meghan to show up, buckle down, accept their inferior position, and shut up.

William is the heir to the throne and he will be more invested than Harry in the idea that one should just get on with it and accept tradition with all its faults. This is rather at odds with his campaign on mental health. I think that allowing his brother and sister-in-law to find themselves in such a state just about finishes William off as a champion of mental health. Anyone who has dealt with mental health knows that the last thing you can do is simply ignore someone’s concerns, even when you do not share them.

All this leaves me very nonplussed that the country will be stuck with the male succession of Charles and William. The one hope is perhaps Charles’ view about the environment. Other than that, I don’t think that either man has the sensitivity and insight that a leader needs in the twenty-first century.

As for Piers Morgan, he was temporarily a hero with the way that he voiced public anger over the government’s shambolic handling of the pandemic. What is very disappointing is that he appears to be just as angry with an unhappy princess as he was over 120,000+ deaths and the catastrophe for health workers. Piers believes in free speech, but he forgets that this is much easier when you have billionaire media moguls as backers. In my book, he is most definitely back to zero. What a bigoted, opinionated loudmouth (not me – him!).