X Close

The Royal Family always wins Republicans don't realise that the monarchy is a form of entertainment

Charles knows he'll win in the end. (Photo by Luke MacGregor/WPA Pool/Getty Images)

Charles knows he'll win in the end. (Photo by Luke MacGregor/WPA Pool/Getty Images)


March 12, 2021   5 mins

The oldest and best English joke is the length of time Prince Charles has waited — with nothing like stoicism — to become King. In their wisdom, our ancestors decided that the leadership of this nation was so minor a matter that almost anyone, so long as they refuted Rome and were the product of a family with a storied history of cousin-marriage, might do the job.

Most of us undertake thorough and detailed research when buying, say, an electric toothbrush. But when it comes to our next head of state, we don’t need to ask any questions because we already know the answer: it’s him with the ears. Dust off the crown and fetch Welby.

Sheer randomness of personnel is what makes monarchy so great. You can end up with a thug, a mystic, a gambler or, as we will eventually, a bloke who genuinely believes he can talk to plants. Greatness can be dunked into the cesspit at any moment. Royalty endures in Britain, not merely because of the pageantry, or the beauty, or its great ennobling truth, but because of its brutal, hilarious irrationality.

Republicans make the mistake of thinking the monarch rules over her subjects, when in fact she is a form of entertainment put on for her subjects, like those hardworking bears that ride motorcycles at the Moscow State Circus.

Our Royals almost understand this. “I’m not very good at being a performing monkey,” Prince Charles sadly admitted to Jonathan Dimbleby in 1994, unaware that his utter discomfort is precisely what makes him such a consistent amusement.

The monarch, her family, their flunkies, valets, chauffeurs, gardeners, manicurists, toadies, lovers, bodyguards, back-up toadies and piss-pot holders — they’re our subjects. They are more or less down on their knees at this point, existing for the increase, encouragement and maintenance of scandal, gossip and jokes. (Yes: they do fine things for charity, too.) Today’s Cromwells are usually American, and like all Republicans they fail to grasp a simple truth about the monarchy: why overthrow it when it bloodlessly overthrows itself every 25 years or so? The House of Windsor was built on a cliff edge — which is exactly where we want it.

This latest Windsorian plunge off the precipice is presented, depending on the sympathies of the storyteller, as either yet another family’s failure to assimilate an outsider, or a case of an outsider undermining that family’s domestic bliss. She stole our prince! Meghan in this version is a truculent and unsparing monster, rather than a garden-variety social climber, who, Godzilla-like, trashes our Royal city.

It is a flattering tale, in which neither the public’s gluttonous appetite for drama, Harry, nor our Crown Prince shoulders much of the blame for what’s happened. I’m not convinced that Meghan — who appears to be thoroughly consumed by a years-old argument about dresses with the Duchess of Cambridge — is really in the driving seat here. Instead, it is surely Harry in the lead; it was only when he appeared that Monday’s interview became interesting. Meghan was his convenient excuse, his getaway car, his ejector pod — in the same way that a nebulous accusation of racism is Meghan’s way of explaining why the Windsors disliked her. Both of them wanted to go. But why?

Well, it seems clear to me that Prince Harry hates his father very deeply. Watch again that moment when he says Charles stopped taking his calls. Harry’s eyes are so narrow they could be covered with a single penny. If this were the 14th century, he would be in France right now, plotting his revenge, doggedly raising an army, ready to sail back to England to seize the throne, violently torture Piers Morgan, and place the entire editorial staff of the Daily Mail in a gibbet. Alas, the 14th century is over, so Harry’s revenge is an over-bathroomed mansion in Beverly Hills and a maximum-damage television spectacular.

Surely it is oedipal fury that made Harry do this, rather than the press or racism, as he claims. How else are we to explain their move to America, where there is no racism whatsoever, and to Hollywood in particular, where, as far as I can gather, no journalists or photographers have ever been seen?

Not that much will change for them. Harry will still smile when he doesn’t feel like smiling. He will still have to mouth phrases he doesn’t understand at interminable functions. The lost Prince will continue to press through crowds of frozen faces in dire rooms, still less free to bitch and scold than the poorest Laotian peanut farmer. In short, he will have escaped into another effigy of himself. The only thing that must make it worthwhile is the knowledge that he has humiliated his father, the man who forced him to walk behind his mother’s coffin.

The roots of Harry’s rage are, however, far less important than the inevitability of such bitter feuding among our Royals. It has all happened before, and will happen again; this pair of keys comes with the property. The Oedipal skirmishing of the Hanoverians, for instance, lasted for more than a century. George I hated his eldest son, the future George II, who hated him right back. George II hated his eldest son Frederick, whose hatred for his father was only interrupted by a fatal cricket accident (well, perhaps). George III’s eldest despised his father so greatly that
 you can see the picture here. The inhuman requirements of monarchical life — Virginia Woolf once compared being a royal to living like a single ant “struggling with a pebble” — make bitter squabbling unavoidable.

Even so, the griefs and frustrations and embarrassments of Charles do seem like they will stand out in the annals. Even the rare notes of sympathy he receives — such as this Washington Post column by Ben Judah — are fairly worthless. Charles, Judah writes, is not a villain. The Prince has been right about many great issues of the day. He thought the Iraq War was a bad idea. He was a green before it was trendy. Plus, Charles is broad-minded — he gives diplomatic speeches to worthy Europeans every now and then. (Judah forgets one of Charles’s key strengths: he looks authentically comfortable holding a pint of beer — once the kind of trait that swung general elections, before we discovered the joy of calling our political enemies racist.)

The problem with all this is that it does not matter if Charles is “right” about organic farming or interfaith dialogue or anything else. Nobody cares what Charles thinks — he was born to be a symbol, not a newspaper columnist.

As a father and a husband (the first time around), it is fair to say that Charles failed. Standing behind the curtains of history for decades, with all his charitable toiling undone by the simple phrase “God forbid, a Tampax”, has not left us with a dynamic, prudent Crown Prince who is capable of holding his family together. “Nobody knows,” he once moaned, “what utter hell it is to be the Prince of Wales.”

But being put through utter hell is exactly what the public wants from him, and all the rest of them, as this week has shown. Monarchy does not survive on laws and abstractions. The unfair truth is that as long as the Windsors dish up an unpleasant family disaster every generation or so, they will endure. The Firm will keep winning, even when it’s losing. That’s why Charles, when he at last dusts off the crown, will be thinking not the resentments of his son, or the cruel attentions of his subjects, but of his face on the coins.


Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

145 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dan Gleeballs
Dan Gleeballs
3 years ago

I don’t know why I missed the gene for envy, or all the accompanying bitterness. What the author of this article fails to realise is that the royal family lend stability to the UK. More Italian governments since 1945 than we’ve had monarchs since 900 AD for example. That sort of stability.

Now, more than ever, after the tumultuous years of Brexit and Covid, I pray the Queen survives and that Philip does too. God knows, the dark day is rushing down on us – and that unifying monarch, who links my father, me and my children, who knew WW2 and Britain before…will be gone.

And it will hurt. I dread it.

So when I read snarky articles treating the royal family like Kardashians but with less respect, I feel irritation. The institution is important; the individuals as flawed as you or anyone else.

Personally, I love my country and our history, right back to kings like Alfred. Good and bad, they are our story too. God save the Queen.

Anne W
Anne W
3 years ago
Reply to  Dan Gleeballs

Well said

D Ward
D Ward
3 years ago
Reply to  Anne W

For some reason I can’t uptick Dan…so count this as one

Dan Gleeballs
Dan Gleeballs
3 years ago
Reply to  Anne W

Thank you. I must say, it’s been lovely to see how many here agreed with the post. We’re not often heard, I think, but here we are, still.
Honestly, it gives me hope.

Iain McCausland
Iain McCausland
3 years ago
Reply to  Dan Gleeballs

The ‘royal family lend stability to the UK’ Any evidence for that statement Dan? Looks to me like the UK is about to split up.

Dan Gleeballs
Dan Gleeballs
3 years ago

I doubt that. It’s clearly possible to be as Scottish as Scottish can be – right now. SNP politics would not make one single Scot any more Scottish, just less British. A vote for the SNP is a vote to lose an identity, not to gain one.

My comment on the queen lending stability is partly because she is queen of Scotland, England, Wales, NI….Canada, Australia etc. That stability has already survived vast change. She saw the British Empire (as it was then) survive a world war. She knew Churchill and every PM since. Can you imagine the perspective? Long may she reign.

Ron Wigley
Ron Wigley
3 years ago
Reply to  Dan Gleeballs

Upticks are not working

Patrick O'Connell
Patrick O'Connell
3 years ago

Don’t be too hasty about that. Come back here when it has happened. And apologise or say ‘I told you so’.

Last Jacobin
Last Jacobin
3 years ago
Reply to  Dan Gleeballs

Provide a voice for the unheard – push back against herd mentality. Mission statement for Unherd. It’s not meant to be the Daily Mail.

Jimbob Jaimeson
Jimbob Jaimeson
3 years ago
Reply to  Dan Gleeballs

Well I have a little less respect for the monarchy being from one of the colonised countries, but I agree this article is just like other british tabloids but with softer language….as if you can know what someone is really thinking by the squint of their eye….oh well I guess this IS categorised as opinion..

Kam M
Kam M
2 years ago
Reply to  Dan Gleeballs

Really well said.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago

The Wall Street journal’s coverage of the recent dust-up didn’t even mention Meghan and Harry’s myriad complaints. It was focused on Charles’ efforts to slim the monarchy and unload taxpayer supported members outside the direct line of succession and the effect of this on the Sussexes. Probably a good idea actually. The Sussexes are too far from the top to command taxpayer support.

Dougie Undersub
Dougie Undersub
3 years ago

I think the WSJ’s point is largely valid although, to be pedantic, the Royal Family is not funded by the taxpayer. Since 2012, the system has been for HM to fund their activities using 15% of the profits from the Crown Estate, with the remaining 85% going to the Treasury. So really, the Queen is subsidising the taxpayer.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago

The WSJ’s point could not be largely valid unless the taxpayers were supporting royal family members. Which they are.
For example, the security services around Meghan and Harry’s wedding were partially taxpayer funded. Their wedding cost a whopping $40.8 million of which the royal family paid $2.4 million. Pretty bad deal for the taxpayers, no?
Security for the royal family is taxpayer funded. This was a central complaint for the Markles, they wanted that to continue. When told that it would not, they then wanted Charles to foot the bill (for security in California, no less). Apparently he declined and “poor Harry” now has to pay for it himself like any other celebrity. Meghan’s house renovations at her free house were courtesy of the taxpayers.
In addition, palace renovations and overseas travel are taxpayer paid. You can google the annual cost per citizen of the royal family.

Last edited 3 years ago by Annette Kralendijk
Dan Gleeballs
Dan Gleeballs
3 years ago

Money, of course, is fungible. If there are costs to having a royal family, they are offset dozens of times over by the revenue from Crown estates. And tourism. Add in the connection to a thousand years of history and national identity – and It may be the best bargain we’ll ever know.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  Dan Gleeballs

In that case, why not keep everyone in the royal family on the payroll? But something tells me that the Markles Frogmore re-do and wedding was more than a bit over the top for someone so far from the throne.
I don’t care how many people live off the public in the UK, as I’m an American. I was merely pointing out the WSJ’s valid point that the Markles anger is driven in part by being cut off, in an effort to slim the payroll, even though their whole point was to be financially independent. I guess they meant financially independent with public and family provided benefits. Sounds like most teenagers to me.

Allie McBeth
Allie McBeth
3 years ago

Worth every single penny.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  Allie McBeth

I think I would feel that way as well were I British.

Pauline Rosslee
Pauline Rosslee
3 years ago

And, how did they acquire the Crown Estates?
1066 meant the English (Anglo-Saxons) were displaced by the king and his supporters, with the Scots and Welsh to follow over the next few centuries. Huge parts of England were depopulated -to suit the Crown. For example New Forest villages were destroyed to suit William the Conqueror’s hunting activities.. The Catholic church was to follow during the 16th century with the Crown being broke and relishing taking the monastery lands and wealth.
Even the sell-off of Charles 1’s art works by Cromwell et al led to the buyers having their art works confiscated by the Crown when the restoration happened in 1660.
And no doubt there are more instances where the Crown took away from others- rich or otherwise to benefit themselves. Until recently they paid no tax, and do not pay death duty.
Hardly, the Crown subsidising anyone … .

Cynthia Neville
Cynthia Neville
3 years ago

How many paintings would satisfy you for each drop of royal family’s blood shed on the battlefields of the 20th (and 21st) century?

Cynthia Neville
Cynthia Neville
3 years ago

Why don’t you read some real history?

Katharine Eyre
Katharine Eyre
3 years ago

1) Hey, I talk to my orchids and I believe they communicate with each other as well. Trees are known to communicate with each other, why not other plants?
2) If I was Charles, I’d have stopped taking Harry’s calls as well. Hasn’t anyone else just got so damned sick of a friend or relative that you take a step back from them to have your own little breather?
3) One of the reasons why I like the Royals is because there is the paradox of them being so unlike you, and yet so like you and your own family. Everyone has/had grandparents that embody the “stiff upper lip mentality” of that generation. Everyone has a relative that makes cack-handed comments and/or hasn’t quite got the memo that the n-word, “P**ki” or some other vocabulary isn’t part of acceptable discourse anymore. Lots of people in my generation (born late 70s early 80s) get frustrated at our boomer parents that still don’t get that we face a whole different world than they did. In all of their glory and mishap, the Royals are just like us. Only in palaces.

Fraser Bailey
Fraser Bailey
3 years ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

Apparently the orchids have stopped taking Charles’ calls.

Brian Burnell
Brian Burnell
3 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

Priceless !
An involuntary Laff out loud. Still sniggering.

Last edited 3 years ago by Brian Burnell
Jane Jones
Jane Jones
3 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

And they can test positive for SARS-CoV-2!!

John Lamble
John Lamble
3 years ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

Apparently Charles has that well-known parental problem that Harry only calls when he wants more (and more ) money.

Susannah Baring Tait
Susannah Baring Tait
3 years ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

I agree with you. And am I the only one who thinks that this article is a little cruel? So easy to take cheap potshots at those who cannot or won’t answer back. Journalists trying to earn points by taking this route are not overly clever in my opinion. And his self-congratulatory attempts at wit were overplayed and increasingly leaden.

The royal family have feelings like the rest of us. And so much being written about them is little short of the bullying and taunting we are all trying to take a stance against in general.

Additionally, our monarchy is a huge money – earner for the UK, so in the rough times ahead, trying to kill the goose with the golden egg seems self-destructive, to me.

Dan Gleeballs
Dan Gleeballs
3 years ago

+1

Last edited 3 years ago by Dan Gleeballs
Anne W
Anne W
3 years ago

I agree it is a little cruel and rather smug , completely agree too about killing the goose that lays the golden egg, not to mention the valuable diplomacy etc

Simon Baggley
Simon Baggley
3 years ago

Alton Towers is a bigger earner than the Royals – the Palace of Versailles does pretty well too – and not a royal in sight – they’re nothing but inbred parasite

Kirsten Walstedt
Kirsten Walstedt
3 years ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

Apparently, scientists have recently taught spinach plants to send emails, so who knows? Maybe orchids will start tweeting?

Fraser Bailey
Fraser Bailey
3 years ago

By God I hate to click on a royal story, something I would never normally do. But I will mention a hilarious example of the ability of the Americans to misunderstand this whole farrago.
The journalist Tim Pool, who pioneered live streaming journalism during Occupy* and is now building a substantial media outfit, often puts out ‘fake’ views on Twitter to test the response of progressive ‘journalists’. In this case he tweeted that the Queen should be impeached and it seems they fell for it. Yes, these people are so unspeakably dumb that they thought the Queen could be impeached.
*Just imagine that. Journalists going out into the streets and getting stories! Tim Pool no longer does it because he will be recognised and attacked by Antifa/BLM etc, as per Andy Ngo.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

Yes journalists are a breed apart. Few have even acknowledged the Grand Canyon sized holes in Meghan and Harry’s stories, and they never will because they LIKE those stories. They show a proud black woman “speaking truth to power”. That is pure catnip to MSM journalists. But I would not paint all Americans that way. Many see the actions of the Sussexes as the spiteful betrayal they were and respect the Queen.
As I noted above, the Wall Street Journal zeroed in on what is likely the real nub of the problem, the slimming down of the monarchy and offloading of non working royals out of the direct line of succession from the payroll. The Sussexes did not want to be off-loaded, regardless of claims to wished for financial independence.

Last edited 3 years ago by Annette Kralendijk
Alex Hawk
Alex Hawk
3 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

Ugh stop defending Tim Pool. Man is an absolute joke. He sits around in his mansion, spouts off nonsense without doing the bare minimum of research, and steals cats: https://www.thedailybeast.com/youtube-star-tim-pools-news-site-collapses-amid-allegations-he-took-a-cat-hostage?via=twitter_page
Reading or liking Tim Pool is a sign of very low IQ.

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  Alex Hawk

you are citing the daily beast…LOL wow!

taddeo1212
taddeo1212
3 years ago

The two recurrent topics in Megan Markel’s staged narrative were racism and mental health, issues with special appeal for the woke praetoriam guard media. The only person she mentioned by name was Kate, one clue leading inexorably to the next interview, when Meghan will reveal that Kate was the person behind the doubts about Archie’s skin color.  Premeditated perfidy, envy, lies, and moral laziness are put to the service of the desperate  need to convince Nextflix’s and Spotify’s bosses that Meghan and her poodle husband deserve the money they are giving them. 

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
3 years ago
Reply to  taddeo1212

Clearly, Meghan is aching for a Kate-takedown and being the narcissist that she is won’t sit still until the deed is done.

Helen Barbara Doyle
Helen Barbara Doyle
3 years ago
Reply to  taddeo1212

Well they have nothing else to offer, not wit, intelligence, artistic ability, sporting prowess, nothing worth ÂŁ100, let alone ÂŁ100m

Kirk B
Kirk B
3 years ago
Reply to  taddeo1212

I watched only a few clips from the interview, but it seemed to me that Oprah was egging her on and asking leading questions.

Kat L
Kat L
1 year ago
Reply to  Kirk B

it was planned; all of those questions had been approved beforehand.

Ann Ceely
Ann Ceely
3 years ago
Reply to  taddeo1212

Apparently, Meghan didnt realise that, as a future queen,Catherine would always take precedence over Meghan!

Last edited 3 years ago by Ann Ceely
Chris Mackay
Chris Mackay
3 years ago
Reply to  Ann Ceely

Oh, I think she did. Hence ….. etc.

Sean McGrath
Sean McGrath
3 years ago

Without the Royals what would you guys have to write about? They keep you in work. Be grateful. I don’t care if they’re anachronistic .. give me a a constitutional Queen/King anyday to a President Blair/Brown or President Cameron/May .. because that’s what we’d have after they finished being PMs.

David Brown
David Brown
3 years ago
Reply to  Sean McGrath

And a constitutional monarch knows his or her place. President Blair (or whoever), on the back of his “democratic mandate”, would go sticking his nose in all manner of places where it is neither wanted nor needed.

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago
Reply to  David Brown

Did he not do that as PM?

Rufus Firefly
Rufus Firefly
3 years ago

This sentence:

How else are we to explain their move to America, where there is no racism whatsoever, and to Hollywood in particular, where, as far as I can gather, no journalists or photographers have ever been seen?

Gave me the biggest laugh of the week. Many thanks from across the pond for your thoughtful article. I have recommended UnHerd to all my friends.

sharon johnson
sharon johnson
3 years ago

Perhaps the most priceless summation of Windsor Woes to date! Bliss to read. I think most rational people can agree that a heavenly entity did not confer heavenly status on a particular human or her/his heirs. It’s all made up to give the gloss of authority to a very ordinary woman with a very ordinary family with average, at best, IQs and no personal accomplishments. (Though in The Crown Margaret could play the piano which is something.) Pre-MM we in the US were entertained by news items from Las Vegas describing Harry’s escapades with the ladies, but it appears those days are gone and we’ve nothing left but sanctimonious dronings from The Markles.

Last Jacobin
Last Jacobin
3 years ago
Reply to  Pedro Mendez

Thanks for link. Brilliant.

Kirk B
Kirk B
3 years ago
Reply to  sharon johnson

Princess Anne competed in the Olympics after winning her place on the team.

Simon Baggley
Simon Baggley
3 years ago
Reply to  Kirk B

Of course she did – and won her place on Question of Sport due to her sparkling repartee

David Platzer
David Platzer
3 years ago

As some commentators here have observed, the story of the Royal Family over these last decades parallels that of many of their subjects. At the time Diana met her gruesome end causing a few days of public hysteria and the Queen was chided for not betraying her grief, it struck me that it was a case of the Me Generation, which Diana epitomised, vs the Stiff Upper Lip. Harry and Meghan could be said to stand for the Selfie Generation.As for Prince Charles, there is a lot to be said for him. Most people of any taste applauded his remarks about modern architecture in the 1980s. He sought out such older aesthetes as Harold Acton and Derek Hill and has shown interest in intellectual pursuits and music, interests that his first wife did not shared. His second wife is undoubtedly a much nicer and more intelligent woman. The article is right that the heart of the problem is Harry’s wish to hurt his father in public just as his mother tried on another television interview.

Last edited 3 years ago by David Platzer
John Lamble
John Lamble
3 years ago

Certainly true, on the whole. But lazy historians love to attach events to royalty so, willy nilly, they are dragged into significance they really never had. George III didn’t like losing his American subjects but to suggest (as every American child “knows”, apparently) that he was personally responsible for the policies which led to that loss is pure imagination. He was stuck with the boneheaded, prejudiced, incompetent politicians of his day, just as monarchs are today.
But there is another serious role that monarchy plays and that is keeping other b*ggers out of the ‘head of state’ role. I have this recurring nightmare of ‘President for Life Blair’ and to avoid that Prince Charles can carry right on instructing daisies not to ruin his stately lawns.

R P
R P
3 years ago
Reply to  John Lamble

Agree very strongly with your final parapgraph, I have yet to see any evidence that the stable and calm democracy (admittedly with issues) like the UK would be any better off as a Republic.
I also point out to Republicans that in general the presidents in those countries often try to set a either a dynasty or hereditary type system in place – for example we had Bill Clinton as a two term president, Hiliary stood (admittedly rejected for Trump!!!) and now they seem convinced that one day his daughter will maybe stand too – That is not eactly giving us a much wider pool to choose from is it! We also had two from the Bush gene pool for three terms overall and another Bush was gov of Florida.
I won’t even start on the Kennedy fam!

Last edited 3 years ago by R P
Brian Dorsley
Brian Dorsley
3 years ago
Reply to  John Lamble

George III didn’t like losing his American subjects but to suggest (as every American child “knows”, apparently) that he was personally responsible for the policies which led to that loss is pure imagination.

Indeed. Parliament at that time acted against George III”s best wishes, and imposed stiff taxes on the American colonies. Another reason he was unpopular with the colonies was that he wanted to limit expansion westward in order to preserve native American lands.

Allons Enfants
Allons Enfants
3 years ago

his face on the coins.

Now i can’t get out of my head the idea of coins minted with little ears sticking out on the sides. Granted, they would present a challenge at parking machines and self-service checkouts, short of redesigning the infrastructure. Maybe they could just issue a collectors’ edition coronation set with the ears.
(Think i better go to sleep, it’s 4AM and it shows.)

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
3 years ago

What is ignored is that todays politicians of whatever political persuasion largely come from surburban middle to upper middle class background, have an arts degree, worked in offices and have no leadership experience. They have no experience of working alongside anyone from a different background or in industry, farming,fishing, foresty, industry, construction, armed forces, etc. The reality is that The Queen, Prince Phillip, Priness Anne , etc meet and listen to a wider range of people than politicians. The Queen receives a vast amount of information from a massive range of sources. As the Queen asked the pertinent question ” Why did no-one see the economic collapse of 2008 ? “. When David Milliband went to India his conduct was so insulting the Indians made a formal complaint.
The reality is that politicians who want a republic are the vain shallow superficial types who are least suited to the role. Progress is about learning from mistakes, not endlessly repeating them. If Britain had been a republic, then I think the period of about 1966 to 1986 could have seen political violence which luckily we avoided.
The Monarch is the one person the Prime Minister can speak to without fear fear of the conversation being leaked and can ask them to reconsider based upon decades of experience. We increasing live in era when hysterical reactions by superficial shallow people is the norm while calm reflections based upon sagacity and vast experience is rare. Very rarely, when someone makes a decision based upon emotions is the question asked ” Where do you think this will lead ?”.

Diana Durham
Diana Durham
3 years ago

My family recently moved back to Britain after 24 years in the US. Unsurprisingly, living in another country gave me a new perspective on my homeland, both positive and negative. And at the same time, I gained insight into the positives and negatives of the US. When I was young, the Royal Family were just there, I heard arguments to get rid of them etc, but did not feel strongly either way. But now, being older, and with the perspective of having lived away, and also, funnily enough, after watching a few episodes of ‘The Crown’ (that was enough), I realise that the reality of ‘the crown’, the symbolic representation in the monarch of the nation as a whole, is something fantastically important, and in our materialist society, little understood. Definitely not understood by the US. Corruption there has become so deep, democracy bought and sold, that their society operates within a deep wound of cynicism and despair, where lying and bs. has become so much a way of life, no one notices anymore. That’s why Ms Markle’s comments and half truths or outright lies just slide out to join the rest of the lies, it’s just normal. But there still exists in this country, an ecology, like well composted soil, of common sense, openness, mostly respect and trust of others, sense of humour, etc, qualities that undergird civilisation. Under attack as this culture is right now by the mad woke in our institutions, we should be ware of taking the Markle show too seriously. We have something, and the Monarchy help keep this alive, a sense of nationhood that is more complex than a blind patriotism, and which helps keep us intelligent, able to think for ourselves, question idiocy, which keeps us in other words, free.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
3 years ago
Reply to  Diana Durham

de Toqueville writing in the 1830s said democracy in the USA would last until politicians learnt they could bribe voters with their own money. Is the USA close to this point?

Fintan Power
Fintan Power
3 years ago

Where would we be without the Royals? They add a certain colour – in the best sense of the word – to the world about them. They live out their lives in a gold fish bowl, which many of us ogle but wouldn’t fancy doing ourselves. They are at once regal and ordinary, being subject to same challenges and temptations whilst trying to the make the best of things that they can as they make their ways through life. In some ways they mirror the rest of society and in other ways they are exemplary, not least the Queen, whose sense of duty and acceptance of her role is outstanding.

Josh Mills
Josh Mills
3 years ago

How else are we to explain their move to America, where there is no racism whatsoever, and to Hollywood in particular, where, as far as I can gather, no journalists or photographers have ever been seen?’
Classic!

Mark Smith
Mark Smith
3 years ago

Since the Battle of Carthage, over 2000 years ago, 22% of people killed in genocides lived in a monarchical system. The other 78% killed in genocides were in a republic or died during a civil war to overthrow the monarch.
The worst monarchies, by the number killed in genocides, were the Imperial Japanese, Germans and Belgians.

Last edited 3 years ago by Mark Smith
Charles Knapp
Charles Knapp
3 years ago
Reply to  Mark Smith

You speak of genocides, was that to leave China and the Soviet Union off the list? But since you go back to Carthage, what about, among other things, the Muslim conquest of India? None were republics (the R in USSR notwithstanding).

Mark Smith
Mark Smith
3 years ago
Reply to  Charles Knapp

My sources were:
“https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides_by_death_toll”
“http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/other/worldpop.html”
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-”population-by-year”
I chose to take the worst figures cited in Wikipedia. I then adjusted the figures to take account of the huge change in the world’s human population. Thus in northern China, Ran Min, whom I categorised as dynastic (monarchical) is cited as killing 200,000 in the Wu Hu genocide from 350 to 351 AD. The population of the world then was 206,000,000 so 0.0971% was adjusted to the population on 7 June 2020, (when I carried out my analysis) of 7,789,756,964 which comes in at 7,562,871.
Likewise for the Zunghar genocide under Qing in which 600,000 were killed which was 0.0747% of the world’s population and adjusted comes in at 5,820,491 for 2020.
Under the Red Terror, Decossackisation and White Terro genocides adjusted figures were 5,654,207, 4,349,390 and 1,087,347 respectively.
In East Pakistan the Bangladesh genocide by Islamists killed 20% of the Bengali Hindus. That would be equivalent to 6,149,808 today.
My general point was that monarchies seem to be far more stable, tolerant and forgiving that extremist regimes.

Fiona Cordy
Fiona Cordy
3 years ago

Excellent and entertaining read with a slightly different take on things. Some of Unherd‘s senior journalists could learn a lot from this young man about how to write.

Nigel Clarke
Nigel Clarke
3 years ago
Reply to  Fiona Cordy

Indeed!

rosalyndamay
rosalyndamay
3 years ago
Reply to  Fiona Cordy

but what was the point?

Alan Tonkyn
Alan Tonkyn
3 years ago
Reply to  Fiona Cordy

Except that, like a lot of ‘senior journalists’, he doesn’t know the difference between ‘refute’ and ‘reject’, which is a pity, if writing is your profession.

Jonesy Moon
Jonesy Moon
3 years ago

hmmm thats pretty cynical POV and i disagree on 2 points; they never wanted ‘out’ they wanted to only work when it suited them and to make money of their titles. you have to go back and look at what was actually said-from the engagement interview-he said he was relieved to have found someone willing to work and she was a pretty transparent liar to those of us who could see it. then there were the various demands and rebuffs from the queen once they did leave. the reasons and actions keep changing with those two. they were clearly pissed off at losing their patronages, their statements(well, hers…) were seething every time their requests were spurned. Meghan’s jealousy was barely hidden. Secondly, Charles was a good father to them both and really every person has failings. I could see that he tried. Handbag may indeed hate him but he wasn’t hard done by.

Helen Barbara Doyle
Helen Barbara Doyle
3 years ago

I rather think Harry objects to being his big brother’s subject as much as anything!

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago

Bravo to Prince William for his measured, classy reply to shouted media questions about his family.

Graeme Morrison
Graeme Morrison
3 years ago

But then, what else could he have said? ‘Yes! We the Royal Family, are as racist as they come!’ 😉

Last edited 3 years ago by Graeme Morrison
Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago

He could have ignored the question. What I appreciated in addition to answering was his tone.

Stanley Beardshall
Stanley Beardshall
3 years ago

At 81 I suspect I won’t live to see my bĂȘtes noires of the Catholic church, the Labour
party, the BBC and the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha dynasty die but it is heartening to watch all four failing so spectacularly….

Last edited 3 years ago by Stanley Beardshall
G N
G N
3 years ago

The latter 3, sure. But the Catholic Church? The globalists within it might fall, but certainly not the 2000-year-old institution.

vaga2000
vaga2000
3 years ago

What a spiteful man you have become at 81, and so close to your checking out time as you have pointed out.

Stanley Beardshall
Stanley Beardshall
3 years ago
Reply to  vaga2000

Lighten up, Varga. If opposition to child molestation, Marxism and unelected power makes me “spiteful” then, yes, guilty…

vaga2000
vaga2000
3 years ago

There’s nothing to lighten up about, that’s a sweeping generalizing statement you made, do you want us to believe those groups only comprise of Marxists and child molesters and that there’s no good people associated with them? There’s rotten apples everywhere, and I believe I am replying to one now.

David Foot
David Foot
3 years ago

As an engineer I say that we are on a terrible curve, a lifetime ago we were 1/4 of the world after our Sovereigns in Privy Council ruled, today we are not even a shadow of our former self, as an engineer, I am alarmed by this curve, hardly England is left, the Marxists split our Kingdom against England, splitting England around centres of population but keeping all its possible “adversaries” united round nationalism. We must stop this and get off the Marxist curve and primarily get rid of the Marxists/ Wokes very fast, it may be already too late, there is no time to lose.
The British Royal Family provided the best system of government and we are still running on the tank which was filled up by the Monarch in Privy Council, that is why we still have wealth even after the Marxist movement in to Westminster which destroyed the Empire after 1945 and the Marxist destruction of our Union after 1997 and in 2019 we saw the naked Marxist/ IRA advocating poisoning the minds of the young in schools against England in the same way as the manufacturing plant of traitors in Cambridge has been doing for more than a century.
We were lucky to miss that bullet, that would have been the end of England and the begining of the Marxist / Stalinist Socialist Republic of Britain (Scotland has more of the old National Socialist Party contribution and it is confusing to talk about British in that context, Scotland needs to make up its mind, any way the hstory of that was that the Marxists of 1997 fanned the nationalism of Scotland to get an eteranally socialist Scotland but the Marxists in doing so spat in to the wind)
As you can see, the power of the unifying Monarchy is greatly reduced by the Marxists in the House of Commons (Unified Monarchy started by the Kings of Scotland across the United Kingdom), by the results we can safely say that the more power of the House of Commons the more common we become.
Another big factor is education, we are allowing nationalists and Marxists to control our education and they are manufacturing hostile and confused snow flakes we must remember that “Marx finds work for idle minds”.
In order to convince people of their lies what the Woke, the Marxist do is to take our history out of time and context and judge it, and it would be too long to describe the history of England here but I will point out the higlights so that we can try to see the environment out of which we came and how well we did it was impressive and better than anybody else or any other ideology. The Imperial ideology of England developed places across the world so great that they are among the most desirable today anywhere and yet our young promote an ideology which out of necessity has to fail because it is an open loop control system called Marxism which advocates to give to all according to their Need and not their Merit killing off any form of feedback. To try that is as the ancient Chinese saying goes “you pluck a flower and a star quivers” the problem is lack of proper Feedback (market in Capitalism)! The two big proofs of what I say are Germany and Korea.
So here goes: What I most take exception to are the taking history out of context and then by the BLM which I call black lives Marxists (because of the originators of the movement which accumulated large amounts of cash and are declared Marxists and BLM is the clever name of their bank account).
What these people do is accuse the first super power which ended slavery at a huge expense and 20,000 dead marines and soldiers fighting against the Nationalist African Kings and Moslem kings who wanted to keep slavery! Our Crown fought against slavery in the end for the first time ever in the history of man! It incurred a debt so big it was only paid for in 2014!
What is more there were more white slaves taken from Northern Europe to the African slave markets than Africans taken to North America (source Dr. Thomas Sowell’s history of slavery)
If England hadn’t developed a powerful Royal Navy we would have been ruled by Africans or anybody else, that is how history worked, everybody was fighting everybody for domination.
Unlike Marxism and some “religions of peace” the Empire made fantastic places to which people from other parts are prepared to die with their children in order to try and get in and yet the traitor manufacturing plant of Cambridge is advocating anti-English decolonization! We need to defund the enemies of England like some universities and the BBC.
Places like Rhodesia and Aden + many others were decolonized by the 1945 Westminster Marxist movement (Labour who also split our kingdom in 1997) leaving behind a human catastrophe. Now Marxists force us to send these failures shed loads of money! While the decolonized seek British Rule coming here in little boats!

Arthur Holty
Arthur Holty
3 years ago
Reply to  David Foot

TL:DR

Annette Kralendijk
Annette Kralendijk
3 years ago

Some young people have issues when they first become financially independent. The Markles are just doing it while closing in on middle age, which is pitiful. Would anyone listen to a couple close to 40 with huge inheritances whining about being cut off financially if they were not Meghan and Harry?
I remember feeling really badly that I could no longer afford the NYC lifestyle to which I had been accustomed while on the family payroll. After college it was best of luck to you, you’re now 21, you’ve had your schooling, now make yourself a good life!

George Bruce
George Bruce
3 years ago

as long as the Windsors dish up an unpleasant family disaster every generation or so, they will endure. 

In that case, shouldnt they go for two? Its not too late to resuscitate the Epstein/Andrew connection. The fragrant Ghislaine is still awaiting trial. Or is this a bit too unpleasant?

sharon johnson
sharon johnson
3 years ago
Reply to  George Bruce

I think Andrew is hidden away in QE2’s closet.

LUKE LOZE
LUKE LOZE
3 years ago
Reply to  George Bruce

It is a sign of our times that the mere whiff of racism is 100s of times more important than the sexual abuse of young girls.

Fraser Bailey
Fraser Bailey
3 years ago
Reply to  LUKE LOZE

And that, pace Andrew Cuomo, a few allegations of relatively mild sexual harassment are more important than knowingly killing 13,000 people. (I’ll probably get cancelled for the phrase ‘mild sexual harassment, but so be it).

Andrew Thompson
Andrew Thompson
3 years ago
Reply to  LUKE LOZE

Couldn’t agree more. Maybe MM will step up to the plate if we asked her? I mean it’s mostly racism based sexual abuse isn’t it?

mindovermud
mindovermud
3 years ago

Its a shame, Meghan had a great wedding, the royals seemed to ben over backwards to accomadate her, even if she was poorly briefed on the position she was entering, but that was probobly Harry’s irresponsibility. However having risen to height rarely reached by any mortal, instead of doing good and making the most of her position, she and Harry really dont seem to be doing anything constructive just running away and whinging… Definitly didnt step up to the plate!

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
3 years ago
Reply to  LUKE LOZE

This ‘racism’ thing is getting really tedious to say the least.

Mike Boosh
Mike Boosh
3 years ago
Reply to  George Bruce

What are the odds that she has an “accident” and all that unpleasantness conveniently goes away?

Andrew Thompson
Andrew Thompson
3 years ago
Reply to  Mike Boosh

I have a very sneaky suspicion that she has already had a self imposed car crash.

Mike Boosh
Mike Boosh
3 years ago
Reply to  Mike Boosh

In case it’s not clear here, I’m referring to ms maxwell disappearing before she can drop anybody important in it… Not meghan.

Brian Burnell
Brian Burnell
3 years ago
Reply to  Mike Boosh

What a shame when Meghan would be perfectly cast in the role.

Brian Burnell
Brian Burnell
3 years ago
Reply to  Mike Boosh

Oh I wish!
That would be really entertaining.

Greg Greg
Greg Greg
3 years ago

Indeed! This royal drama has even garnered the attention of many Americans. We’ve grabbed our drink, buttered our popcorn and anxiously await the next episode. Will Harry awaken from a slumber akin to that of the king of Rohan under the spell of Wormtongue? Will the queen turn Wormtongue…er, I mean Meghan over her knee and give her a good spanking? Will Charles ignore the entire fiasco and turn his attention solely to the plight of…(whatever woke cause his PR staff recommends) in an attempt to make himself appear significant? Stay tuned….

Andrew Hall
Andrew Hall
3 years ago

The huge anticipated income H&M could earn is predicated on their continued high public profile. So I guess we’ll see them return for many more bites of this particularly lucrative royal lemon. The palace statement ending with “Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved family members” makes sense only if they shut up, stay away and produce. I doubt their combined talents run much beyond putting in faux-royal appearances at charity fund raisers. So they will likely return to the sour fruit of their self-inflicted Hollywood exile over and again. We are in for a long bitter ride with those two. Sadly.

Chris Mackay
Chris Mackay
3 years ago
Reply to  Andrew Hall

I don’t agree. They have already crashed because they never learnt the golden rule of the very very important set – which is, Do Not Wash Your Dirty Linen in Public.
That is why the Royal family stays quiet when all about them are losing their heads.

Saul D
Saul D
3 years ago

Sorry. Too many articles on the soap opera ‘The Windsors’ now. Could you consider returning more important issues please.

Fraser Bailey
Fraser Bailey
3 years ago
Reply to  Saul D

Yes, I was thinking the same thing. It might as well be the Daily Mail.

Dorothy Slater
Dorothy Slater
3 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

Ah yes – BUT over here in the colonies, I, for one, am delighted that I haven’t heard the name TRUMP in weeks, However, I am still surrounded by the year long COVID and vaccine discussions. Thank God, Andrew Cuomo has come on the scene and might take our minds off Meghan and Harry. But I assure you, we won’t be half as interested in hearing about the Biden budget.

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
3 years ago
Reply to  Dorothy Slater

TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP – now you’ve heard it lots lol. We miss him already…what with the southern border being over run, money being printed at super speeds, with an uber-partisan distribution, no press conferences in over 50 days, an unsettled & queasy feeling about an elderly guy in the White House who’s even having a hard time walking never mind talking…bring back the fabulous Orange Man : )

Last edited 3 years ago by Cathy Carron
Vivek Rajkhowa
Vivek Rajkhowa
3 years ago

Pathetic. The crown is meant to rule not be used for public entertainment. No wonder this country has gone to shit.

Mark Stone
Mark Stone
3 years ago

Oh blumin ech! its hard to care. I quite liked the idea of Megs joining the party. Now she looks like she didn’t really want to be involved and has found a load of reasons to hate it. Cant blame Hazzer for wanting out – who would want in? The whole idea is bonkers and I’ve spent my life marvelling at the popularity of the royals. Strangely I find myself defending them now because Megs is just so unconvincing. Great actor….

miles1uk9
miles1uk9
3 years ago
Reply to  Mark Stone

We have experienced this all before. Harry is the Spare not the Heir. It was the same with Margaret. The ‘Press’ haven’t moved on either.

rosalyndamay
rosalyndamay
3 years ago

A deeply cynical comment- meant to sound clever from which I learned nothing!

ml holton
ml holton
3 years ago

… Coming up, the next volume in this real-life fairy tale ~ ‘The Lost Prince Battles The Good Prince’.

I’d say the damage done between the two brothers is irreversible now. Peevish Harry will troll Prince William to his grave.

Question remains: Will Katherine ALLOW that toxic pair anywhere near her children? ~ I wouldn’t.

Mark St Giles
Mark St Giles
3 years ago

Presidents are pretty randomly chosen too. Whoever is in the right place and at the right time and has enough money. Even good old Biden found that to echo Churchill ‘“I felt as if I were walking with destiny, and that all my past life had been but a preparation for this hour’ I suppose that might be true of of Charles. The poor chap has been waiting long enough.

Stephen Morris
Stephen Morris
3 years ago

An unnecessarily cruel dig at Charles. Clever writing but nothing more than clever with a drop of smugness.

Glyn Jones
Glyn Jones
3 years ago

“Well, it seems clear to me that Prince Harry hates his father very deeply. Watch again that moment when he says Charles stopped taking his calls.”

Did he said “his father”, or did he say “Prince Charles”?

Chris Hopwood
Chris Hopwood
3 years ago

“But when it comes to our next head of state, we don’t need to ask any questions because we already know the answer”
But if, heaven forbid, some tragedy were to befall the senior royals, does the writer seriously think for one moment that Harry or Andrew would be allowed to become monarch??

Nigel Clarke
Nigel Clarke
3 years ago

The buffoon becoming King would be a worse situation than the current Harry Hewitt and the woke Narcissistic gold-digger embroglio.

Which is, I guess, why William and Kate are being bigged up on a daily basis in the MSM.

M Spahn
M Spahn
3 years ago

How strange it must be for once-rulers who’ve devolved into mascots, or circus animals, as Charles has it.

Judy Englander
Judy Englander
3 years ago
Reply to  M Spahn

The British monarchy hasn’t ruled in any meaningful sense for three hundred years.

y4rfzsr2f4
y4rfzsr2f4
3 years ago

Well, it seems clear to me that Prince Harry hates his father very deeply.”
Capt. Hewitt: “How in the heck did I get drug into this mess?”

astraea shaw
astraea shaw
3 years ago

Hell hath no fury …….
Charles should have known better.
And, did you know that that woman chatting to the disgusting Oprah woman, likes to dress up in Diana’s clothes? If they are not necessarily her clothes, they are exact copies – to the hat and gloves and shoes!
Weird! That poor boy must be very spooked indeed.

Last edited 3 years ago by astraea shaw
Christopher Chantrill
Christopher Chantrill
3 years ago

Lost Prince. Got it.

Russ Littler
Russ Littler
3 years ago

Oh, Will, Will, Will,……if only you knew what was really going on. This is all smoke and mirrors, a mere distraction for the sleeping masses.

Stewart Slater
Stewart Slater
3 years ago

While the Georges may have not got on with each other, they also did not portray themselves as the national family in the way the Royals have since probably Victoria, but certainly George VI. Their domestic issues were also not known to the whole nation, if for no other reason than the communications did not allow it. While I find both Meghan and Harry ghastly, they do seem to have realised that since at least the ’60’s, the Royals have functioned as celebrities and, with no particular talent, the only product they have to sell is themselves. Their interview is merely the logical extension of the business model the family has pursued for decades – celebrity “tell-alls” are hardly a novelty. The issue is whether that is compatible with the “dignified” role the constitution requires the monarch to play. The contrast with the Japanese Emperor, who appeared at the Fukushima memorial yesterday is telling. He keeps a very low profile and while the Japanese enjoy seeing him, they don’t miss him when they don’t. The rest of the family is pretty much invisible. While the Windsors want to be loved, their Japanese counterparts are happy just to be respected, and that seems a far more sustainable approach.

Vivek Rajkhowa
Vivek Rajkhowa
3 years ago
Reply to  Stewart Slater

Think it’s also the case that the Japanese Emperor was until WW2 worshipped as a literal God.

Steve Gwynne
Steve Gwynne
3 years ago

Have you considered being a Royal therapist.

Nah bad idea. Let the codependency and dysfunction continue.

Long Live the Queen

Neil Datson
Neil Datson
3 years ago

In 1955 the New Statesman published an article by Malcolm Muggeridge likening the royal family to a national soap opera.
Well, soap operas are in occasional need of new characters, and in the current age what new character could be more appropriate than a Hollywood actress, especially one who behaves like a Hollywood actress, expecting the public to give a damn about her pampered feelings? An ideal casting.
Incidentally, it was apparently only when the Muggeridge article landed stateside that he came in for serious opprobrium, British reaction having been fairly muted. Perhaps the joke is on the USA this time?

John Williams
John Williams
3 years ago

The monarchy will survive Meghan and even curmudgeonly republicans will agree that if we have to be saddled with a king then let it be one that talks to plants and cares about the environment. But things can change quickly – in 1913 the Russian monarchy seemed the most secure in Europe: people were prostrating themselves and kissing Nicholas II’s shadow as he passed during his tour of the country as part of the tercentenary celebrations of the Romanov dynasty. Three-and-a-half years later they were gone. In the same year cheering crowds greeted Franz Josef, the Austro-Hungarian Emperor, in his old age as he opened various buildings and attended various events often featuring choirs of angelic-looking school children singing lustily away; his parting comments each time – “It’s all been very, very nice” – had become a national catch-phrase. The monarchy barely survived his death a few years later. The house of Windsor has these once great monarchies in its rear view mirror; it knows that it can take nothing for granted.

Judy Posner
Judy Posner
3 years ago

delightful!

miles1uk9
miles1uk9
3 years ago

Cheap, Will. Had expected better.

Kelvin Rees
Kelvin Rees
3 years ago

Brats off. Charles will say.

Mike Spoors
Mike Spoors
3 years ago

There is a word not used much nowadays but perfectly sums up this latest spat amongst the Royal Family and the spill over into the mindless world of social media . Tiresome.

Alan Hawkes
Alan Hawkes
3 years ago

So Britain is Omelas, just not so utopian, and Charles is the boy in the dungeon, but with someone to put toothpaste on his toothbrush each morning. Well, I’m not walking away.

Lee Johnson
Lee Johnson
3 years ago

Dis reg Harry haat sy pa

ed martin
ed martin
3 years ago

Thank Goodness the RF has nothing to do.

Jorge Toer
Jorge Toer
3 years ago

I believe the universe is change every single time, everything change ,if not, becoming rotten,The Firm is, corrupted and rotten ,I agree with you ,Will Lloyd,thanks for the commentary.

Matt Whitby
Matt Whitby
3 years ago

The problem with the actual institution is that it doesn’t matter if they fail and it doesn’t matter if they stay, yet we attribute both false importance and futile attempts to make it into something more than it really is. Republicans refuse to acknowledge how powerless they are in anything more than a heritage and cultural sense, monarchists seem to think they are both incredibly important but also need to have much more importance.

Personally I don’t tend to take much notice, but I would question why among European nations the ones that seem to function with the best balance of nationalism, freedom and prosperity are those which maintain a monarchy, no matter how arbitrary the presence is. I think the author’s proclamation that they essentially remain consistently unsteady is probably the best solution

Nun Yerbizness
Nun Yerbizness
3 years ago

“In their wisdom, our ancestors decided that the leadership of this nation was so minor a matter that almost anyone, so long as they refuted Rome and were the product of a family with a storied history of cousin-marriage, might do the job.”
If this was meant as deprecating humor it succeeded, if meant to be a serious observation it is a joke.

Alex Hawk
Alex Hawk
3 years ago

Dumb article. Can’t understand this obsession with the royal family; attacking Harry and Markle in such an over-heated, cynical way. I’m not seeing any grappling with their actual complaints (and contrary to this shallow-thinking author, there ARE actually differences between being stuck in the Royal Estate in England and having your own place in California – which anyone with a lick of common sense would know…) and just a bunch of chest-puffing over an institution that hardly matters. Let it implode. And stop examining every frame of an interview for evidence Harry’s eyes ‘narrowed’ (???). Waste of time.

Cynthia Neville
Cynthia Neville
3 years ago

What a small-minded, mean author.

Alka Hughes-Hallett
Alka Hughes-Hallett
3 years ago

Perfectly summed up Will.
Dysfunctional, poor upbringing, bitterness, jealousy are the norm in families. Rich or poor, royal or not, the children end up paying for the fathers sins & history repeats itself.
So why all this judgement ! Who said what , did what , gave what interview, did what for charity, they all have their justification. They are all right & wrong . Except one of them should be criminally prosecuted ( no names ) for blatant egregious acts .

Kathryn Richards
Kathryn Richards
3 years ago

Criminally prosecuted for what? Assuming you are referring to the obvious, I should point out that having sex with a well paid hooker who is over the age of 16 (If that is what happened) is not illegal.
It may be lots of things – unpleasant, sordid, stupid and I am sure that you can add a whole lot more to that. But illegal it isn’t.
By the way, do you not think it strange that of all of Epsteins friends and associates (including at least 2 of the US’s ex presidents, one from each party) one person has been particularly singled out.

Alka Hughes-Hallett
Alka Hughes-Hallett
3 years ago

From Wiki
It also became known that Andrew was a person of interest in the criminal investigation into the Epstein affair and that US authorities had filed a mutual legal assistance request to the UK in order formally to interrogate Andrew.

Ok , he may not have been formerly charged but this is a LOT worse in my books than any thing Harry & Meghan may have done.

Last edited 3 years ago by Alka Hughes-Hallett
Terence Riordan
Terence Riordan
3 years ago

Love it…would mention one thing…the whole circus structure was created as a deal between Unglish Govt and the King .They make a profit and stay out of politics and we the people stop cutting their heads off. So far it all seems to be fulfilling the deal.

Tim Bartlett
Tim Bartlett
3 years ago

It didn’t win in 1649

Charles Knapp
Charles Knapp
3 years ago
Reply to  Tim Bartlett

Back then the Monarchy was of the absolute variety and actually governed the country. Today the Monarchy is of the constitutional variety and rule while staying out of politics. That’s the theory anyway.

Tim Bartlett
Tim Bartlett
3 years ago
Reply to  Charles Knapp

Yes indeed. The point is that everything is certain and permanent until suddenly it isn’t. I understand the queen keeps Charles 1 smock from his execution, and obviously realises how public opinion can change and how important it is for a monarchy. One can only hope her eldest son is equally wise.

bhavani1854
bhavani1854
3 years ago

The British Royal Family are a giant PR campaign for the UK worth $55billion or $88b including tangible assets and contribute $1.8billion annually to UK economy. Forbes.
Is Harry a ringer and mexit a ruse to keep Andrew from public scrutiny.

Last Jacobin
Last Jacobin
3 years ago

‘Republicans don’t realise that the monarchy is a form of entertainment.’
Obviously true that the monarchy is a form of entertainment and most republicans realise that. The English football team is a form of entertainment but we don’t expect team selection to be based on who your father was.
I think it”s the monarchists who regard the monarchy as being more important than purely entertainment.

Fred Atkinstalk
Fred Atkinstalk
3 years ago

“I’m not very good at being a performing monkey,” Prince Charles sadly admitted.
Poor chap. I suspect that he has now come to accept that he is not very good at anything at all.

Otto Christensen
Otto Christensen
3 years ago

For goodness sake England, grow up and become a Republic.

Christopher Barclay
Christopher Barclay
3 years ago

Harry’s rage with his father is understandable if you assume that he believes that his mother was murdered and that his father had a role in it. Diana’s security was scaled back to near zero when she lost her HRH title. Following the interview it became public that Harry and Meghan are having to fund their own security because they are not due taxpayer funded security and Charles refuses to pay. If Harry does fear that his mother was murdered, then he is likely to fear that the conditions are being laid for Meghan to meet a similar fate.