A Comment from a Friend on my Column on the History of British Royal Family Scandals
"Either this nation will kill racism, or racism will kill this nation." (S. Jonas, August, 2018)
Vintage Postcard Collection - The Royal Family At Windsor, Circa Mid-1930s. The Queen's dogs were Corgis then too.
(Image by France1978) Details DMCA
Introduction
Readers may recall that about a-month-and-a-half ago I published a column on the dust-up over the "Meghan-and-Harry-Interview-with-Oprah," and then went on to briefly present a history of British Royal Family scandals, with an emphasis on the 20th century but going back to Queen Elizabeth I.
Subsequently I received a lengthy comment from a friend who is, to my knowledge, not a Royalist, but certainly has a degree of sympathy for the contemporary Royal Family as well as a sense of its history. With the permission of the writer (who shall of course remain nameless), and our Editor-Publisher Rob Kall, for your consideration I present it to you here (in quotation marks, with a very few minor edits in [ ]).
The Commentary
"I lived in London for a long time and like you, have also studied English history and the royal family. They have their issues but frankly are no more dysfunctional than any other family. Re Meghan and Harry, I have to take the opposite point of view. I am always cynical when people cry they want privacy, and at the same time, they do interview after interview. It is usually celebrities, but in this case Meghan and Harry. The ultimate irony (or cognitive dissonance) is that nobody would be interested in them at all if they weren't royalty, so why bite the hand that feeds you. There are always 2 sides to everything but a couple of facts that Oprah glossed over, or didn't mention. (I was actually very disappointed in her style, period. She didn't interview, she didn't probe, she brought up no uncomfortable facts. She fed Meghan's narrative).
"Baby Archie was never going to be a prince. This has nothing to do with his mother/father/colour/nationality, but [the title of Prince is] ONLY decreed to grandchildren of a reigning monarch. This is part of the "royal constitution" and many (such as Princess Ann) whose children would be eligible, actually said no to the title as she wanted her children to grow up, earn a living etc. Baby Archie will become a prince when Charles is crowned but not before.
"Baby Archie was not refused security. Children of royalty do not get security independently and when royalty or government officials travel overseas, the security is largely provided by the country they are traveling to. The exception is the U.S. President who (if I am not wrong) always takes all his own armoured cars etc. Both Pierre Trudeau and then latterly President Trump said they would not provide security after Harry stepped down from his royal duties. When you understand that it is tax-payers' money that pays [for] this security, then you can see that in Canada in particular, this was a hot potato. Australia would have done exactly the same.
"Prince Charles did not cut Harry off - quite the contrary - he has funded him for many years, which again is ironic as Harry has consistently said he wants to be independent. Secondly Harry inherited well over $20mm from his mother [the Princess Diana], and about $5mm from his grandfather [the late Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh] - sums of money that the majority of the population in both countries would never see.
"There has never been any sign of racism in the royal family except for 2 well documented incidences - ironically both Harry - one when Harry himself dressed up in a Nazi uniform to attend a party (well photographed) and another when (yet again) Harry was caught on a mike referring to "my little Paki friends" that he made in the army (both incidents fully documented). I for one, do not believe that Harry is racist, but he made 2 big mistakes, so he should be more careful when throwing stones.
"Oprah also did not mention that one of the Queen's first cousin's daughter, married a Maori, from New Zealand. He has been frequently seen on the balcony during [the] Trooping the Colour etc., and always stands out, not because he is black, but because he is tall and very good looking!
"Secondly, the reigning monarch is the Head of the Church of England [this from the time of Henry VIII]. However, Prince Charles wants to be known as Defender of ALL Faiths. He has regularly attended mosques, synagogues etc. and has been very inclusive of all religions from very early on. He was "green" well before it was acceptable (in fact, was seen as rather eccentric way back) and is a true conservationist. In fact, I am confident that you would really enjoy talking to Charles (yes, I have met him, and William and Harry). He is smart, thoughtful and quite left of centre. He is not just a lazy rich kid!
"All of that above are facts - easily checked. Then some opinions, not necessary facts.
"If Meghan was having such mental anguish, why didn't Harry help her? He is very connected in the mental health world and could have gotten expert care very quickly.
"If Meghan was struggling in her new role (don't we all) why didn't Harry take her under his wing and point out the nuances? It is always hard changing countries and "companies" I certainly know that.
"If Meghan didn't know the National Anthem, then either fudge it (she is an actress after all) or learn it. It is not that hard, and I made a point of learning the US one, as it was great and important for me to be able to sing along whenever it was played.
"Is it a coincidence that Harry always got on very well with his family, until Meghan came into his life? She is well known to be estranged from her father and half-siblings. She has now fallen out with Jessica Mulroney, her alleged best pal, and it was telling that instead of close friends at THE wedding, she had Oprah, George Clooney etc.
"If I give everyone the benefit of the doubt, I don't think Meghan understood what royalty is, and didn't really see what she was getting into. It is not Hollywood celebrity. It is not private planes and parties in the South of France. It is actually a dreary life of duty, opening official functions, living in cold and drafty castles etc. Maybe most of America doesn't understand this. It is surprisingly not glamorous at all.
"I could go on and on, but frankly as you can see, I have trouble hearing how tough life is from 2 people who have just married the love of their life, have a very longed-for baby and another on the way, and live in luxury. I have so many stories right now (as I sure you do) of people really struggling through this pandemic.
"I hope this gives just a small perspective of the other point of view.
"And yes, I will be glued to the TV this weekend, to farewell the Duke of Edinburgh. Now that was a life of service!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And then, in further correspondence with me, there was an additional set of short comments:
"Another interesting thing I have noticed is that people in the US tend to have opinions on the royal family based on their political party - i.e., Trump a supporter the Queen, Biden a 'supporter' of Meghan. That puzzles me and is quite different to the rest of the world, where the royals are seen as left of Centre, and not idle aristocracy - even though by definition they are as 'high' as you can get. There is a great moment in 'The Crown,' when Prime Minister Wilson, the first Labour Prime Minister of The Queen's reign, and allegedly her favourite, teases her that she is 'actually a leftie hidden inside.' She of course denies any political affiliation!
"I mentioned that Harry was left money by his mother and grandfather. I obviously had Philip on the brain at that moment. It should read 'mother [Princess Diana] and great grandmother, the [most recent] Queen Mother [that would have been another Elizabeth, the widow of George VI, who were the parents of Queen Elizabeth II, the current Queen], who lived to be over 100.
"Secondly, I mentioned Pierre Trudeau. Showing my age! It should of course be (his father) Justin Trudeau.
"Finally, I hope everyone interested in the Oprah interview watched the funeral. There is the Queen still working hard at 94. She has never been more needed since World War II, than during this pandemic. Simply amazing.
"Which reminds me of another lovely fact. During the London bombing in WW2, many aristocracy/rich people sent their children to the US/Canada to be safe. The government urged the then Queen (the mother of the present Queen) to do the same, and send the Princesses. The Queen said no --- the King will never leave his country; I will never leave the King and the girls won't go without me. Buckingham Palace was subsequently bombed (they were not harmed) and the Queen said she was glad they had been bombed, as she could now look the East End in the face. Each night after the air raids, she and the King went out to inspect the damage and comfort the people.
"This family has a remarkable history of service and fortitude in my opinion!"
Finally, my correspondent said this:
"I was so glad to see the back of Trump, not just for his policies, but for his rudeness and lack of service to the great country of America. Regardless of Biden's policies (which I happen to like), it is fabulous to see graciousness returned. We can all learn a lesson about respect and regardless of their grievances, I hope Meghan and Harry learn that before it is too late - especially for Harry's sake. I am sure he will live to regret it otherwise."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As someone with a fascination for the 800+ year history of the British Crown, I found this commentary, from someone who is no Rightist, to be of great interest. I hope that you do too, as well.