In 1867 the journalist Walter Bagehot described the English Constitution as a delicate interplay between a part of the state that would “excite and preserve the reverence of the population” and one that would “employ that homage in the work of government.” For many British citizens this rationale for the Queen’s role as the “dignified” head of state who partners with an “efficient” government has remained a persuasive justification for the monarchy to this day.
Seen through this lens, or through the sympathetic reimaginings of history in “The Crown”, one might view the standoff between Buckingham Palace and the Duke of Sussex as a reprise of the “catastrophic” 1936 abdication of King Edward VIII, who gave up the throne to marry an American divorcee. In the Netflix series, Edward’s decision to choose private life over the cheerless duty of royal service is portrayed as an indulgence that nearly ‘sank the ship’ of state. Instead, like her father before her, the series shows the young Elizabeth grinding through the hard work of “doing nothing” gracefully enough to keep the “efficient” and “dignified” aspects of Britain in their necessary equipoise.
Sceptics may advance a simpler analysis of the couple’s difficulties: an overdue reckoning with traditional racism and sexism. For many the complaints aired in Oprah’s interview were eerily similar to the torments Princess Diana described when she tried to modernise, and humanise, the same family. Others may note the overlap between Ms Markle’s unhappy transition to royal life and the sufferings of pop icon Britney Spears as chronicled in the new documentary “Framing Britney Spears.” (Both women faced obsessive tabloid coverage, institutionalised misogyny, and went through severe mental health crises without any meaningful support.)
Whichever view one takes of the matter, it is striking that a Daily Mirror headline could call the current situation the “worst royal crisis in 85 years” when another member of the family is facing sex offense allegations. American reporting of the crisis also seems to come from a different world — a rift highlighted by the antics of the British media figure Piers Morgan. Americans are more aware of the odious contrasts that British tabloids have between the princes’ rival spouses — the solid Englishwoman vs the brash American — and the clear undertow of old-fashioned British racism. Hardened by decades of royal scandals, the British are likelier to notice how out of touch the institution of the monarchy seems, how remote from their daily lives.
If Her Majesty’s subjects and former subjects spent less time distracted by family quarrels they might be more concerned about maintenance costs. The Constitutional Monarchy Association’s website reports that royal “expenditure has reduced significantly from £87.3m in 1991-92 (in current pounds) … to £35.7 million in 2014-2015.” This laudable economy does however omit the estimated £369m for the 10-year refurbishment of Buckingham Palace’s 775 rooms (including 19 state rooms, 52 royal and guest bedrooms, 188 staff bedrooms, 92 offices and 78 bathrooms), not to mention the upkeep costs of governors general. (Canada pays approximately 60 million dollars for the privilege, annually.) But the point is clear, the monarchy is eager to be seen as adapting to a changing world.
Rather than manage the optics of another scandal, the much criticised “Firm” that manages the royal family would do better to undertake a wider reckoning with history as the institutions which oversee the Commonwealth have done. This might involve more forthright apologies for the shameful chapters in Britain’s imperial history, rather than simple boosterism, and similar adjustments to the zeitgeist. Otherwise although it may not be possible to have an Archie the First, there could easily be an Elizabeth the Last.
