IT IS tempting to conclude that the problem with the Duchess of Sussex in the eyes of those who dislike her is not that she is black, but that she is American. After all, the British Establishment has form on this, going back to Wallis Simpson and the then King Edward VIII.
Then, any American was, by definition, a parvenu and incorrigibly vulgar. Today, the problem lies in the culture gap between the “Never complain, never explain” stiff-upper-lip royal default and the Californian therapy culture of self-absorbed introspection which leads Prince Harry into “speaking his truth” and “owning his story”.
We are living in an age that is still exploring the tensions between the need for individual fulfilment and a re-emerging sense of the importance of institutions to society.
We must avoid easy polarisations. It is undoubtedly healthy that the 12-year-old boy once told to walk behind his mother’s coffin without any show of emotion has grown into a man at ease with talking about his mental health. Previous polarisations have been unhelpful, as in attempts to portray Catherine, Princess of Wales, as a respectable, discreet, and selfless mother, contrasted with Meghan as a manipulative and woke career woman — in criticism larded with racial undertones.
The same media that revel in such contrasts once portrayed Catherine and her younger sister, Pippa, as the “wisteria sisters” — “highly decorative, terribly fragrant, and with a ferocious ability to climb”. The same pundits who once derided Prince Harry as a former squaddie who called an army comrade a “Paki” and a “raghead” now mock him for speaking of “unconscious bias”.
This is a sad saga of contradictions. Prince Harry’s book, Spare, is filled with resentment at having to take second place in an institution that is defined by hierarchy. The royal family, which is charged with racism, was, in the person of the late Queen, a champion of Commonwealth multiculturalism long before it was fashionable. Then there is the paradox that a couple who complain of gross intrusions of privacy inflict the same on others.
The Sussexes’ wedding five years ago looked as if it would open the door to a new type of royal: socially conscious, politically aware, and emotionally open. But the opportunity has been squandered. The royal family was too inflexible, and the former Hollywood actress confused royalty and celebrity. Harry, once the most popular royal, is now viewed negatively by almost two-thirds of the population, YouGov polling suggests. His wife is the second-least popular royal; only Prince Andrew ranks lower in public esteem.
It is hard to see how the prodigal prince can come back any time soon from his angry attacks on his elder brother and the Queen Consort, whom he begged his father not to marry for fear that she would become a “wicked stepmother”. He may well have been right to opt for a separate life in the United States, but this book burns a bridge too far.
Even his army family have turned their backs on him, as former comrades and commanders have condemned his ill-judged behaviour in revealing the number of Taliban fighters that he killed from his helicopter. “You stupid boy,” Captain Mainwaring used to say to Private Pyke. Sadly, it’s hard to disagree with the rebuke.