Harry and Meghan’s abdication crisis is history repeated as farce
“But you must believe me when I tell you that I would find it impossible to carry the heavy burden of responsibility and to discharge my duties as a woke A-List celebrity as I would wish to do without the help and control of the woman I love…”
It’s déjà-vu all over again. History repeats itself, as Marx with uncharacteristic accuracy claimed, first as tragedy then as farce. The abdication of Edward VIII was absurd enough; that of Harry IX was sheer buffoonery. Perhaps the modern generation will be less willing to demonise Stanley Baldwin and Cosmo Lang for their opposition to a royal marriage with an American divorcée now that it has experienced empirically what happens when complacency replaces constitutional propriety.
The statement issued by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex was self-explanatory – perhaps more so than its authors intended. As a manifesto of pompous entitlement and self-regard it ranked as a template. “After many months of reflection and internal discussions, we have chosen to make a transition this year in starting to carve out a progressive new role within this institution.”
By “this institution”, presumably, they mean the Monarchy. What “progressive new role” does the Sussex couple have the right or ability to “carve out”? The Monarchy is the property of the nation and its direction is charted by Her Majesty the Queen. Progress towards what? Towards a posturing, politically correct, Hollywood-oriented existence on the charitable foundation asteroid belt orbiting Hillary Clinton, by all appearances. It is a pity that during their months of reflection and internal discussions they did not see fit to inform the Queen of their intentions.
When they finally did so and she apparently asked them to delay any public announcement they defied her wishes and issued their declaration of self-indulgence – an act of boorish discourtesy towards the 93-year-old monarch, already struggling with problems not of her creation during what should be the golden sunset years of her reign. Nothing could better illustrate the indifference of the Duchess of Sussex, clearly the prime mover in this opera buffa, towards the Queen and the British public.
The American newspapers have identified her influence by christening the initiative “Megxit”. Social media are full of the vacuous congratulations of airheads who regard Meghan Markle as a victim (as she has schooled herself to do), courageously breaking free of an unendurable royal servitude and hostile British press, when what she has actually done is lead a royal prince away from his duty to his country.
To understand the mentality of Meghan Markle you need only pose a single question. Can you imagine the Queen, under any adverse circumstances – the Prince of Wales’s marriage crisis and the Diana debacle, Windsor Castle ablaze, the Duke of York controversy, the Duke of Edinburgh’s various health problems – saying plaintively “Not many people have asked if I’m ok”?
That is the difference between a royal princess born to the crown and to duty, and a woman drawn from the self-absorbed Me generation that inhabits Hollywood, where obsessive preoccupation with self is a way of life. Meghan Markle is, in Hollywood terms, a victim. Judge for yourself by cataloguing her experiences.
She became a millionaire in her own right by achieving minor stardom in an American television series. After divorcing, she met and married one of the most eligible bachelors on the planet, a royal prince who was also a millionaire and grandson of the Queen. She became a duchess, a royal highness, had a fairy tale wedding, was presented with a grace and favour residence, Frogmore Cottage, and gave birth to a healthy son.
If that heart-breaking chronicle of misery does not bring tears to your eyes you are simply not on the Hollywood wavelength. For that facade of apparent good fortune conceals a mountain of misery: concern about the planet, boredom with royal duties, sensitivity about press criticism and, above all, the consuming anxiety about how to return from exile to the centre of woke civilisation and promote herself from C-List to A-List celebrity.
It has finally dawned on the British public how little they are esteemed by their newest princess. Some have taken the snub badly. Sarah Vine in the Daily Mail wrote: “It’s almost as though nothing matters to this couple apart from their own immediate happiness and gratification, as though they are incapable of seeing beyond their own little bubble of privilege.” Piers Morgan described the pair as “the two most spoiled brats in royal history”, which may be accurate, since Greta Thunberg is not royal.
The royal family, taken by surprise by this act of consummate selfishness, is asking for time to resolve the situation. That is sensible, for there are long-term constitutional issues to be considered. After abdication, the Duke of Windsor made a clean break with Britain and the royal family. There would be huge pitfalls in having the Sussex couple as semi-detached members of the royal family, half in and half out. If, as is their declared intention, they undertake gainful employment there could be controversial issues, e.g. if the duchess returned to acting.
At some stage there needs to be a final resolution of this unsatisfactory situation. The Monarchy has enough problems without the possible hostages to fortune posed by a couple of loose cannons rolling around North America. We have not heard the last of these two wilful people (or is it one?) and future developments could prove ominous. One whimsical aspect of the case is that, of all the political role models Boris Johnson expected to play, he can hardly have anticipated stepping into the shoes of Stanley Baldwin.