The New Prince of Bel Air

Many hundreds of thousands of column inches will have been published on the continuing "Westenders" soap, starring the convoluted adventures of the British Windsor family, held together only by the imperturbable, sanguine matriarch, Queen Elizabeth II. Why then add more when they may be read by just a few hundred?

Not only has 2020/21 been an unprecedented years for the people of Great Britain in the midst of a much exaggerated 'Coronavirus epidemic', it has been a very rocky one for the central constitutional concept of Monarchy itself.

On the face of it these are just the sort of trials and tribulations millions of families experience. Marriages that go wrong. Infidelities. Break-ups and separations. Tragedies. Scandal. Yet of course when one particular family has been under the international media spotlight for generations, following its every move from cradle to grave, these events, which for 'normal' people remain within a limited circle, become the discussion topic for billions.

That cannot be easy for the people involved. It must demand a certain and peculiar psychological adjustment that is able to place an invisible barrier between the public persona and the private one. The two it would appear are not always complementary, in both senses. What you see in public is not always what you get in private. Perhaps we should not be too surprised about this, as we all experience the same phenomenon in our own lives. How many of us could withstand the microscopic examination these individuals are subject to?

Having said that, they, by which I mean the members of the Royal Family, do have certain advantages to mitigate their situation. Firstly they are very rich, largely but not exclusively paid for by the British tax-payer. Secondly they are protected by a large and influential establishment with access to both State and private assistance unavailable to the common man.

Such an arrangement is ultimately dependent on public support and consent, created by a strange and ill-defined set of emotional and practical considerations. Ultimately the Crown must elicit the respect and love of a majority of the population to survive, an art exquisitely perfected by the present Monarch. Few realise, as she must, how tenuous is the grip on position, if not of power.  

How un-popular was her great-great-grandmother, Victoria, even in an imperial age of much stronger social deference, and how close we came to a republic? Somehow, with a combination of glamour and mystique, Monarchy within a system of Parliamentary democracy survived the century, even as empire and world power declined, largely because no one has been able to come up with a better system. 

We have retained allegiance to hereditary position because we recognise it in our own lives and because the alternative of naked political power is too awful to contemplate. Who could stomach a President Blair, Cameron or May? Allegiance is owed to a figure head, not a political party or individual. It may be the only thing that protects us from tyranny, although that assertion has been sorely tested in the past decade. It is in this context that damaging developments should be viewed, whether incidental or contrived.

But aside from wealth and glamour, there exists a huge and powerful machine to protect the power Monarchy represents. This applies as much to high politics as to the Royal Family itself. There is no doubt it has been misused and misapplied in the past to scotch scandalous rumours and bad behaviour that might tarnish the image. The historic close relationship between the Monarch and the BBC was severely damaged by critical stories and the mishandling of events that subtly saw them lose their preeminent position in all things Royal. The relationship with the press has been similarly uneven. 

The Windsor Castle fire marked an 'anna horribilis' that in many ways began before and has not relented since. Marriages to the Queen's sister and to three of her children fell apart in a blaze of embarrassing publicity. The tragic and suspicious death of her daughter-in-law, adored by the public but resented by the family. More recently the damaging scandal around her second son's association with Jeffrey Epstein and a car crash interview. Now the whole unseemly business of a disloyal and banished grandson, wife and offspring, intent it would seem on doing as much damage as possible to the hand that once fed them.

The circumstantial evidence surrounding Prince Andrew is not good. He has been reported by those responsible for his safety as being rude, bullying and libidinous which is corroborated by allegations from a female, supported by photographs and sworn testimony, besides admitted close friendship with a convicted sex trafficker. It is rather instructive to contrast and compare how his behaviour was treated with the present one involving the Duchess of Sussex, where bullying claims are subject to a detailed investigation.

The Duke of Edinburgh (99) is in hospital, obviously nearing the end of his life. The Queen is almost ninety five, still in office long after most people feel or are required to retire from far less onerous duties. Inevitably we are getting closer to the end of a close partnership and reign, though to admit may appear callous. 

"Who's in charge."

Whether 'King Charles III' or Monarchy itself will survive all the turmoil waits to be seen. To dispense with the rules of succession would be to dispense with the bedrock of the institution. However it is clear that paradoxically there are anti-democratic and anti-monarchical forces at work, of which we should be aware, ably demonstrated by the current unnecessary Covid 'lock-down' and 'lock-up', from which even the Royal Family has not been exempt or able to prevent. 

As to the Sussex 'stepping back' estrangement, it is hard to see how the breach will be healed. From being publicly the favourite member of the Royal Family, partly as result of his wayward rebellious tendencies and common touch, he has become anathema to the majority of the British people, who still treasure duty over personal feelings, an attitude clearly not espoused by his wife. 

As a couple they have become exemplars of treachery and desertion, which as a military man, must be particularly painful to the Prince. He finds himself in a classic case of 'cognitive dissonance', torn between wife and family. But none of this excuses the thinly veiled attack on his father and grand parents, particularly when they are are at such a vulnerable point in their lives. It is possible he might be forgiven by a gracious  grandmother, though I doubt the Sovereign ever will. Edward VIII is proof of that.

Harry and his wife are modern tragedies on a Shakespearean scale. Despite their wealth and privilege, one cannot help but feel sorry for him particularly, destined to be cut off from his historic roots, family, nation and destiny. One wonders if the relationship will last and what will happen if it doesn't? Alternatively whether having experienced an international position he will be content with a vacuous Los Angeles life as the partner of a beautiful B-class actress and celebrity. We shall have to wait and see. 

Both at the moment seem to be playing the victim which is not a good role. Meghan has claimed the Palace is behind attempts to discredit her; that effectively the Queen has lied; that she was discriminated against by virtue of her mixed race; that worries were expressed regarding the colour of her son's skin; and that the stress may cause another miscarriage; in short she was treated so badly she considered suicide. Hasn't everyone had suicidal thoughts at sometime in their lives? The focus should be on the circumstances surrounding those who actually attempt it or carry it out and the reasons why. We can see why Harry is fearful of history repeating itself. He has always held an ambivalent view of the role he was born to as he has expressed it clearly in the past.

These and others are all very damaging claims against the present and future monarchs, that place the sixth in line to throne in a very invidious and probably unrecoverable position. I doubt there is anyway back for either of them. If they remain where they are, they will presumably have to take on American citizenship and relinquish their British one. That will be the final nail in their 'Royal' Sussex coffin.

Harry by virtue of his birth into the Royal Family and over thirty years of his experience of it, could not have been so naive to have been unaware of the implications of marrying a divorced American film star, with pretensions to fame and wealth. Nor that their decisions and behaviour would have the consequences that they have had. It's a bit rich - in both senses - that they now play the violin of victimhood to the world, whilst preaching how it can be more caring and environmentally aware.

Harry's ride on the bus with James Corden was yet another example of his poor judgement. In seeking to be all things to all men, he risks being no-one to any-one other than the ephemeral and transient 'Prince of Belair'. END.