tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/meghan-markle-53780/articlesMeghan Markle – The Conversation2023-02-15T01:51:42Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1989902023-02-15T01:51:42Z2023-02-15T01:51:42ZCould buccal massage – the latest celebrity beauty trend – make you look older, not younger?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/509368/original/file-20230210-18-xqv6c9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=2%2C5%2C995%2C555&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/manual-sculpting-face-massage-young-woman-1441681823">Alexander Egizarov/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, <a href="https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2018/05/meghan-markle-royal-wedding-prep">reportedly</a> had it before marrying Prince Harry. Jennifer Lopez is also <a href="https://www.eonline.com/news/917768/jennifer-lopez-is-a-fan-of-meghan-markle-s-pre-wedding-facial-too">apparently</a> a fan. We’re talking about a type of facial called a “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2023/jan/30/why-celebrities-love-buccal-massage-mouth-facial">buccal massage</a>”.</p>
<p>But what exactly is a buccal massage? Does it really sculpt the face, <a href="https://www.skincarebyamypeterson.com/buccal-sculpting-facial">as claimed</a>? Are there risks? Could it actually make your skin look “looser” and older?</p>
<p>You probably won’t be surprised to hear there isn’t evidence from rigorous controlled scientific studies to show buccal massage gives you a more contoured look. </p>
<p>But talking about it can raise awareness about our facial muscles, what they do, and why they’re important.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/does-amber-heard-really-have-the-worlds-most-beautiful-face-an-expert-explains-why-the-golden-ratio-test-is-bogus-187018">Does Amber Heard really have the world's most beautiful face? An expert explains why the Golden Ratio test is bogus</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What is buccal massage? Does it work?</h2>
<p>Buccal massage (pronounced “buckle”) is also called “intra-oral” massage. The term “buccal” comes from the Latin “bucca” meaning “cheek”. </p>
<p>In buccal massage, a beautician inserts their fingers into the buccal cavity – the space between your teeth and the inside of your cheeks – <a href="https://www.instyle.com/beauty/skin/buccal-facials">to</a> “massage and sculpt your skin from the inside”. </p>
<p>They apply pressure between the thumb (on the outside the mouth), and pinch and move fingers (inside the mouth), to stretch and massage the muscles. </p>
<p>You can also <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPpPEG7ZX2w">perform it on yourself</a>, which may give you better control over stopping if <a href="https://www.dazeddigital.com/beauty/article/44445/1/buccal-massage-sharpen-cheekbones">it hurts</a>.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="InstagramEmbed" data-react-props="{"url":"https://www.instagram.com/p/CBeua74FLm-","accessToken":"127105130696839|b4b75090c9688d81dfd245afe6052f20"}"></div></p>
<p>But could all of this (rather expensive) action really change the shape of your face, or how it looks, feels, or moves?</p>
<p>It’s extremely unlikely, since the shape of your face is influenced by a lot more than your muscles. Any claims of buccal massage providing any lasting impact or “uplift” on the contours of the face are purely anecdotal.</p>
<p>In the absence of controlled trials reporting on the effects of buccal massage, it’s unlikely stretching your skin and oral or facial muscles in this way will provide any lasting benefit.</p>
<p>That’s possibly because buccal massage is “passive” – the muscles are only moving by the effort of the beautician.</p>
<p>In contrast, “active” movement of face muscles, through a program of face exercises, was associated with some improvements to facial appearance in a <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5885810/">small study</a> of middle-aged women.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-the-ugly-history-of-cosmetic-surgery-56500">Friday essay: the ugly history of cosmetic surgery</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>But facial massage and stretching can help some</h2>
<p>External massaging or stretching muscles in the face, however, can help some people with certain medical conditions affecting the jaw, or how the mouth opens.</p>
<p>This includes people with <a href="https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/24086-trismus">trismus</a>. This is when the temporomandibular joint – where the jawbone meets the skull – can be so tight it’s <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK493203/">hard to open your mouth</a>. </p>
<p>Face massage can also provide <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5237268/">some relief</a> for people with jaw clenching or <a href="https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/bruxism/symptoms-causes/syc-20356095">bruxism (teeth grinding)</a> when it relaxes the muscle and reduces tension. </p>
<p>Health professionals might also <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305417915000546?via%3Dihub">prescribe</a> mouth and face stretches and exercises for someone recovering from <a href="https://www.vicburns.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Face-and-mouth-exercises_020419.pdf">facial burns</a>. This is to make sure that, as someone heals, their skin is flexible and muscles mobile for the mouth to open wide enough and move properly. Being able to open your mouth wide enough is vital for eating and tooth brushing. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-do-i-grind-my-teeth-and-clench-my-jaw-and-what-can-i-do-about-it-172298">Why do I grind my teeth and clench my jaw? And what can I do about it?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Is buccal massage safe?</h2>
<p>As there is no scientific research into buccal massage, we don’t know if it’s safe or if there are any risks.</p>
<p>The firm touch, squeezing and movement of another person’s fingers on the sensitive mucous membrane (moist lining) inside your mouth could be both uncomfortable and off-putting. This action will also <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/odi.12867#:%7E:text=Stimulation%20of%20mechanoreceptors%20in%20the,%2C%20%26%20Berg%2C%201987">stimulate your salivary glands</a> to produce saliva, which you’ll need to spit or swallow. </p>
<p>As buccal massage involves a beauty therapist’s fingers being inside your mouth, infection prevention and control measures, including <a href="https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/environment/factsheets/Pages/beauty-treatment.aspx">excellent hand hygiene</a>, is essential. </p>
<p>It would also be interesting to know whether or not buccal massage could actually further <a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/what-is-buccal-face-massage_l_6352be32e4b03e8038debf83">loosen your skin</a> and make you look older, sooner.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/covid-or-covid-vaccination-can-cause-dermal-fillers-to-swell-up-192159">COVID or COVID vaccination can cause dermal fillers to swell up</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Your face muscles are important</h2>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/509385/original/file-20230210-409-iccs2s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Anatomical drawings of the face, from front and two sides" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/509385/original/file-20230210-409-iccs2s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/509385/original/file-20230210-409-iccs2s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=359&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/509385/original/file-20230210-409-iccs2s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=359&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/509385/original/file-20230210-409-iccs2s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=359&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/509385/original/file-20230210-409-iccs2s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/509385/original/file-20230210-409-iccs2s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/509385/original/file-20230210-409-iccs2s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Your face muscles affect how we look, eat, drink and communicate.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/3d-illustration-female-head-muscles-anatomy-1525406915">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Regardless of whether buccal massage has any effect, it’s a chance to talk about our face muscles and why they’re important.</p>
<p>We often take them for granted. We may not think about keeping these muscles “supple”, and they don’t usually feel “stiff” unless we hold a smile for long periods, grind our teeth, or have a medical condition affecting the face, jaw or mouth.</p>
<p>There are more than <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK493209/">two dozen</a>, muscles in our face, most in pairs, one on either side of the face.</p>
<p>They’re a vital part of who we are, shaping our appearance, and allowing us to make facial expressions, lower and raise our jaw and the corners of our mouth, smile, blow a kiss, speak, suck and swallow.</p>
<p>Face muscles help define the shape of our face and our identity. It’s no wonder we can struggle with age-related changes that affect how our face looks.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/lets-face-it-first-impressions-count-online-71012">Let's face it, first impressions count online</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>3 cheers for our buccinators</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://www.healthline.com/human-body-maps/buccinator#1">buccinator muscles</a>, which buccal massage moves, are vital to our survival. The buccinator is one of the first muscles <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK546678/">to contract</a> when a baby suckles.</p>
<p>These muscles lie deep beneath the skin of the cheeks and are important for a number of reasons:</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/509378/original/file-20230210-16-sa3bvr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="The buccinator muscles" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/509378/original/file-20230210-16-sa3bvr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/509378/original/file-20230210-16-sa3bvr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/509378/original/file-20230210-16-sa3bvr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/509378/original/file-20230210-16-sa3bvr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/509378/original/file-20230210-16-sa3bvr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/509378/original/file-20230210-16-sa3bvr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/509378/original/file-20230210-16-sa3bvr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">We have two buccinator muscles, one either side of our face.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/3d-rendered-medically-accurate-muscle-anatomy-1607241178">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<ul>
<li><p>their main function is to help us eat. They contract to help move food between the teeth for chewing. We can squeeze our buccinator muscles to push food back into the mouth from the sides</p></li>
<li><p>they help us puff out our cheeks, blow out a candle, or blow a trumpet </p></li>
<li><p>when they contract, they move your inner cheek out of the way of your teeth. Without them, you’d bite your cheek every time you closed your jaw</p></li>
<li><p>they help keep your teeth in place.</p></li>
</ul>
<h2>In a nutshell</h2>
<p>Buccal massage mightn’t make your face look “sculpted”. It probably comes with infection risks, and we know little about its safety. </p>
<p>But if nothing else, the buccal massage trend has highlighted just how important our face muscles really are.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/198990/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bronwyn Hemsley receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the University of Technology Sydney</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Amy Freeman-Sanderson receives funding from he University of Technology Sydney. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Helen L. Blake does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>You probably won’t be surprised there aren’t any clinical studies about whether buccal massage can give you a more contoured face. We also don’t know if your face could end up looking more ‘saggy’.Bronwyn Hemsley, Professor of Speech Pathology, University of Technology SydneyAmy Freeman-Sanderson, Senior Lecturer in Speech Pathology, University of Technology SydneyHelen L. Blake, Lecturer in speech pathology, University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1979832023-01-24T17:40:35Z2023-01-24T17:40:35ZHarry and William duke it out: Will sticks and stones topple thrones?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/505969/original/file-20230123-5967-dlww4p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C2296%2C1415&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Prince William and Prince Harry arrive for the statue unveiling of their mother on what would have been Princess Diana's 60th birthday at Kensington Palace in July 2021, a year after Harry departed the U.K. for the United States.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Yui Mok/via AP)</span></span></figcaption></figure><iframe style="width: 100%; height: 100px; border: none; position: relative; z-index: 1;" allowtransparency="" allow="clipboard-read; clipboard-write" src="https://narrations.ad-auris.com/widget/the-conversation-canada/harry-and-william-duke-it-out--will-sticks-and-stones-topple-thrones" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>Brotherly love turned to conflict and estrangement is not an uncommon story in families. That’s why so many people are fascinated with the British Royal Family and the <a href="https://news.sky.com/story/a-royal-rift-how-did-william-and-harrys-relationship-break-down-12780316">current meltdown between Princes Harry and William. </a></p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="A dark haired man frowns standing next to two boys, one a teenager looking down and a smaller boy with red hair staring ahead." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/505393/original/file-20230119-16-lpnq6d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/505393/original/file-20230119-16-lpnq6d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=1010&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505393/original/file-20230119-16-lpnq6d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=1010&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505393/original/file-20230119-16-lpnq6d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=1010&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505393/original/file-20230119-16-lpnq6d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1269&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505393/original/file-20230119-16-lpnq6d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1269&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505393/original/file-20230119-16-lpnq6d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1269&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Prince Charles, now King Charles, and his sons Harry and William stand near Princess Diana’s hearse in London in September 1997.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(John Gaps III/AP)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We want to know what happened. They seemed bonded in the dark days after their mother <a href="https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/20210521113646/prince-harry-haunting-memory-princess-diana-funeral/">Princess Diana’s untimely death and funeral</a> in 1997.</p>
<p>Would grief not strengthen the ties that bind? Surely they would be inextricably bound for the rest of their lives after the traumatic loss of their beloved mother. </p>
<p>Yet when you consider the patriarchy, racism, misogyny and colonialism so deeply embedded in the British monarchy, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/25/opinion/harry-meghan-tabloids.html">their estrangement starts to make sense.</a> </p>
<h2>The ties that bind — or divide</h2>
<p>But first, what do we know about sibling relationships? They are not well studied but we do know that these relationships <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2015.07.003">can be sources of both risk and resilience.</a></p>
<p>Studies show that <a href="https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/ajp.2007.164.6.949">dysfunctional sibling relationships can result in concerning mental health outcomes — anxiety, depression and substance abuse</a>. Or conversely, they can be <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.01011.x">great sources of support in healthy psycho-social development</a>, providing strength in the face of adversity.</p>
<p>Siblings can also experience both types of relationships at different times. Even when sibling relationships are fraught with conflict, the very same siblings <a href="https://www.apa.org/monitor/2022/03/feature-sibling-relationships">can display fierce loyalty to each other when criticized or attacked</a>.</p>
<p>Next we need to bring in larger family dynamics and something called <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119085621.wbefs130">family systems theory</a> — the idea that the whole is more powerful than the sum of its parts. Part of this rests on the notion that a deeper examination of what we see on the surface of families reveals what lies beneath. </p>
<p>External forces also operate in the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1300/J002v03n01_02">larger ecology of families that play out in everyday life</a>. Knowing the values and belief systems of families, including their cultural influences, helps us understand what bubbles up to the surface of sibling relationships. This seems particularly pertinent to the Harry and William situation.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Various Royal Family members stand on a balcony festooned with red and gold bunting looking out at the crowds. An elderly woman dressed in blue is in the centre." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/505970/original/file-20230123-11-454brd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/505970/original/file-20230123-11-454brd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505970/original/file-20230123-11-454brd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505970/original/file-20230123-11-454brd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505970/original/file-20230123-11-454brd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505970/original/file-20230123-11-454brd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505970/original/file-20230123-11-454brd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Members of the Royal Family gather on the balcony of Buckingham Palace in July 2018.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Matt Dunham)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Scapegoating a family member</h2>
<p>To better understand their relationship, it’s also helpful to know about triangles. </p>
<p>That means when two family members join forces against one, <a href="https://www.encyclopedia.com/science-and-technology/technology/technology-terms-and-concepts/triangulation">resulting in scapegoating</a>. In <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2023/01/13/prince-harrys-spare-breaks-guinness-record-for-fastest-selling-nonfiction-book-and-he-hints-theres-much-more-he-left-out/?sh=44a426a34e6b">his record-breaking memoir, <em>Spare</em>,</a> Harry alleges that King Charles and Prince William have been doing this to him for many years.</p>
<p>Families employ scapegoating when they want to blame a family member for problems or use them to deflect <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119171492.wecad225">from larger, more entrenched issues</a>. Harry is seemingly the Royal Family’s scapegoat for other, more significant problems. </p>
<p>Let’s start with his uncle, <a href="https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/money-and-power/a28339290/royal-family-prince-andrew-jeffrey-epstein-relationship/">Prince Andrew, who had an association with sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein</a> and allegedly sexually abused an underaged girl. The Royal Family paid £12 million, almost $20 million, <a href="https://time.com/6149123/prince-andrew-settlement-virginia-giuffre-royal-finances/">to settle a lawsuit with one of his accusers.</a></p>
<p>Andrew, an accused sex offender, was purportedly Queen Elizabeth’s <a href="https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/film-tv/a34704337/queen-elizabeths-favorite-child-prince-andrew-rumor/">favourite child</a>, and <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/prince-harry-meghan-less-popular-prince-andrew-b2260884.html">he’s polling higher than Harry and Meghan in surveys of older British people.</a></p>
<p>Fairness and favouritism are also known <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119171492.wecad225">to undermine sibling relationships</a>. Obviously, the monarchy is literally based on the institutionalized favouritism of lineage. The crown is passed on by birth order and until recently, gender.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A woman with short blond hair smiles on a boat next to two young boys, one with red hair." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/505391/original/file-20230119-20-bwxunx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/505391/original/file-20230119-20-bwxunx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505391/original/file-20230119-20-bwxunx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505391/original/file-20230119-20-bwxunx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505391/original/file-20230119-20-bwxunx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505391/original/file-20230119-20-bwxunx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505391/original/file-20230119-20-bwxunx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The late Diana, Princess of Wales, enjoys a ride on the Maid of the Mist in Niagara Falls, Ont., with Prince Harry and Prince William in October 1991.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Hans Deryk</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The impact of birth order</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-birth-order-affect-personality/">Birth order is another determining factor</a> in how siblings will or will not get along. William will be king and Harry is now further down the line of succession, and is no longer <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-64185317">“the spare,” as he was callously declared by his father upon his birth</a>.</p>
<p>Spares and women are considered “lesser than” in this patriarchal, colonial system — backups just in case something should happen to the heir. Thankfully, this age-old tradition has changed recently — Prince William’s daughter, <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/princess-charlotte-makes-royal-history-in-line-to-the-throne/">Charlotte, will remain behind her older brother George but ahead of her brother, Louis, in the line of succession</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="A woman in red with thick blonde hair smiles while holding an infant swaddled in a white blanket; a dark-haired man next to her looks to the side and is unsmiling." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/505957/original/file-20230123-7682-r0chf2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/505957/original/file-20230123-7682-r0chf2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505957/original/file-20230123-7682-r0chf2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505957/original/file-20230123-7682-r0chf2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505957/original/file-20230123-7682-r0chf2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=487&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505957/original/file-20230123-7682-r0chf2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=487&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505957/original/file-20230123-7682-r0chf2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=487&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In this Sept. 16, 1984 photo, Princess Diana smiles as she holds a newborn Harry alongside her husband, then Prince Charles.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Family systems theory further argues that without intervention, patterns repeat over generations. The Royal Family <a href="https://psychcentral.com/blog/imperfect/2018/07/why-do-we-repeat-the-same-dysfunctional-relationship-patterns#What-fires-together,-wires-together">seems to epitomize this inter-generational repetition of dysfunctional patterns</a>.</p>
<p>Harry’s situation, for example, is similar to his great <a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/Edward-VIII">Uncle Edward’s break from the monarchy</a> when he abdicated the throne to marry American Wallis Simpson decades ago. </p>
<p>Adjectives used to describe Simpson, then and now, <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51567105">drip with misogyny and disdain, including derogatory remarks</a> about her alleged eating disorder (like Diana’s struggles), drinking and divorce status. It seems Harry’s wife is a similar target as she’s been bombarded for years with <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/dec/13/harry-and-meghan-are-right-about-racist-britain-in-their-netflix-series">sometimes openly racist remarks</a> and <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/prince-william-accused-racist-tropes-meghan-markle-rude-abrasive-difficult-1771472">described as difficult and abrasive by William</a>, according to Harry.</p>
<h2>Harry takes the heat</h2>
<p>Exiting the Royal Family has come with grave consequences for <a href="https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2023/01/prince-harry-spare-memoir-never-though-lose-palace-security-prince-andrew-kept-his-sexual-assault-scandal">Harry and Meghan, including being cut off from security</a> despite the relentless and often <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-64080863">incendiary attacks against them by the British media.</a></p>
<p>British subjects seem to consider their departure, along with Harry’s memoir, as the ultimate betrayal. The British media is currently fixated on Harry and Meghan — not Andrew, and the allegations of sex crimes against him, and not the monarchy itself, its enduring colonial attitudes and the fact that <a href="https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/read-this/commonwealth-queen-king-charles-3840160">several Commonwealth countries want to cut ties.</a></p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1453299362398887943"}"></div></p>
<p>Scapegoats take the heat for a family’s sins and help keep those sins hidden, especially in high-profile families. <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/live-prince-harrys-interview-with-cbs-anderson-cooper-ahead-of-spare-book-release/JDAZJEL56NHNZMMNZW6ZGJGEWM/">“Never complain, never explain” is the Royal Family motto, although Harry alleges his relatives indulge in both regularly</a> by leaking and planting stories about other family members to avoid negative media coverage. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="A man in a military uniform and hat stands blurred in the background while a red-haired man with a beard walks beside him in the foreground." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/505388/original/file-20230119-21-jvfsds.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C4075%2C2609&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/505388/original/file-20230119-21-jvfsds.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=384&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505388/original/file-20230119-21-jvfsds.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=384&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505388/original/file-20230119-21-jvfsds.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=384&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505388/original/file-20230119-21-jvfsds.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=483&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505388/original/file-20230119-21-jvfsds.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=483&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/505388/original/file-20230119-21-jvfsds.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=483&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Prince William and Prince Harry join the procession following the state hearse carrying the coffin of Queen Elizabeth towards St. George’s Chapel, Windsor, in September 2022.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Justin Setterfield/AP)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Harry has disrupted these tactics, however, by exposing them. His ordeal has also reminded the world of the <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/royal-family-racism-controversy-erupts-as-william-and-kate-visit-boston">racism running through the colonial veins of the British monarchy</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/mar/23/british-royal-family-monarchy-historical-links-to-slavery">its involvement in the enslavement of Africans and the transatlantic slave trade</a>.</p>
<p>The racist attacks on Meghan were Harry’s main stated reason for fleeing — <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/prince-harry-itv-60-minutes-1.6707554">and to protect his wife and their children from the dangers posed to them in the United Kingdom</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/five-ways-the-monarchy-has-benefited-from-colonialism-and-slavery-179911">Five ways the monarchy has benefited from colonialism and slavery</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Olive branch?</h2>
<p>So what will happen with <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/21/uk/king-charles-coronation-details-intl-gbr/index.html">King Charles’s coronation in May</a>? My guess is that an olive branch will be offered to Harry and Meghan, with invitations extended to them, and there may even be some internal pressure to bring them back into the fold. </p>
<p>But if the old family patterns inextricably tied to patriarchy, racism, misogyny and colonialism persist, Harry will almost certainly resist that pressure — and the monarchy will also be forced to either totally reinvent itself or risk being abolished in the years to come. </p>
<p>In other words, this is one sibling feud that could have historical repercussions.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/197983/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ramona Alaggia receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Public Health Agency of Canada. </span></em></p>The relationship between Princes William and Harry is fractured, and can be explained by what’s known as the ‘family systems’ theory. Repairing it will require the Royal Family to change.Ramona Alaggia, Professor, Social Work, University of TorontoLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1967382022-12-19T11:21:07Z2022-12-19T11:21:07ZNetflix’s Harry & Meghan: the Sussexes are not unique in being royal victims<p>To our surprise, one of us (Robert Hazell) appeared in episode one of the Netflix documentary <a href="https://theconversation.com/harry-and-meghan-what-the-first-episodes-reveal-about-meghans-reputation-within-the-royal-family-196303">Harry & Meghan</a>.</p>
<p>His contribution was based on our book <a href="https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/role-of-monarchy-in-modern-democracy-9781509944552/">The Role of Monarchy in Modern Democracy</a>, a comparative study of the other monarchies in western Europe, as well as the UK. Monarchy makes extraordinary demands not just of the monarch but of other close members of the royal family, whose lives are restricted from the moment of their birth.</p>
<p>The first and biggest restriction is that all royals suffer from constant intrusion of the press into their private lives. The worst cases come from the UK, where intense competition in the tabloid press has led to grotesque invasions of privacy.</p>
<p>These range from The People <a href="https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/how-camillagate-tapes-exposed-secret-10958350">publishing a transcript</a> of a late-night conversation between Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles, to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_of_the_World_royal_phone_hacking_scandal">illegal phone hacking</a> of Prince William’s staff, to paparazzi using <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/14/palace-increasingly-dangerous-paparazzi-tactics-prince-george-duke-duchess-cambridge">dangerous tactics</a> to get photos of then two-year-old Prince George.</p>
<p>But there is a symbiosis between monarchy and the media which makes it difficult for royals to criticise the press. If they do so, they risk bad press coverage – and monarchy depends on the media both to publicise what it does and to maintain popular support.</p>
<h2>Royals and the press: a special relationship</h2>
<p>Most of the time the media accept the line they are fed, but not always. Alongside all the glossy pictures, there is more serious investigative journalism which keeps monarchies on their toes.</p>
<p>The media also commission regular opinion polls on all the European monarchies. Is the royal family paid too much? Who are your favourite royals? Should the monarch abdicate? Should the country become a republic? </p>
<p>Support remains high in all European monarchies, with <a href="https://constitution-unit.com/2020/09/30/the-role-of-monarchy-in-modern-democracy/">polls regularly showing</a> that between 60% and 80% of the people wish to retain the monarchy.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/t1WJTwy8I7c?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The trailer for Harry & Meghan.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Privacy and freedom from press intrusion is not the only freedom which the royals lack. They also lack free choice of career, freedom to marry who they like, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom to travel.</p>
<p>Take free choice of career. In all European monarchies the heir and others close in the line of succession cannot choose a profession or pursue a business career, lest they be accused of exploiting their position for commercial gain.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.newsinenglish.no/2019/08/07/princess-to-stop-exploiting-her-title/">Princess Märtha Louise of Norway</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2001/oct/15/marketingandpr.broadcasting">Prince Edward</a> in the UK have both been accused of this, as have spouses of minor royals. In the Netherlands, members of the royal family and their spouses cannot take a job without first seeking government approval.</p>
<h2>The heir and the spare</h2>
<p>The harsh reality is that younger sons such as Prince Harry are ultimately disposable. It is only those in direct line of succession who count. </p>
<p>Other European monarchies have learned to keep the core team as small as possible. It can be just four people. In Norway and Spain it is the King and Queen, the heir and their spouse.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/501507/original/file-20221216-17105-pf4ypv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Queen Margrethe of Denmark in a royal portrait against a book shelf." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/501507/original/file-20221216-17105-pf4ypv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/501507/original/file-20221216-17105-pf4ypv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/501507/original/file-20221216-17105-pf4ypv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/501507/original/file-20221216-17105-pf4ypv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=902&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/501507/original/file-20221216-17105-pf4ypv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/501507/original/file-20221216-17105-pf4ypv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/501507/original/file-20221216-17105-pf4ypv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1133&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Queen Margrethe of Denmark stripped four of her grandchildren of their royal titles in 2022.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Drottning_Margrethe_av_Danmark.jpg">Johannes Jansson / Nordic Co-operation</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In 2019, the King of Sweden <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49958085">removed five grandchildren</a> from the royal house. In 2022, Queen Margrethe of Denmark followed suit, <a href="https://people.com/royals/queen-margrethe-denmark-strips-four-grandchildren-royal-titles/">stripping four grandchildren</a> of their royal titles. They are the children of her younger son Prince Joachim and the decision caused a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/07/danish-royals-in-crisis-as-grandchildren-stripped-of-titles-queen-margrethe">serious rift</a> in the royal family.</p>
<p>The UK is apparently following suit. King Charles wants a <a href="https://www.insider.com/what-prince-charles-slimmed-down-monarchy-could-look-like-2021-5">smaller, streamlined monarchy</a> of perhaps just half a dozen people. </p>
<p>Until 2020, the team was much larger, with <a href="https://writeroyalty.com/2019-by-the-numbers-royal-work-round-up-part-1/">15 royals</a> who carried out public engagements. It has since shrunk with the departure of Harry and Meghan, as well as Prince Andrew and now with the <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-makes-a-national-atmosphere-an-expert-explains-the-mood-surrounding-the-queens-death-190712">death of the Queen</a>.</p>
<p>It will soon shrink further with the eventual retirement of the older royals who still undertake some public engagements. But with a smaller team the royal family will be able to do a lot less. </p>
<p>That will require careful management of public expectations, not just in the UK but in the 14 other countries around the world where <a href="https://theconversation.com/will-canada-cut-ties-to-the-monarchy-under-king-charles-its-possible-190894">Charles is now king</a>.</p>
<h2>Have Harry and Meghan been uniquely victimised?</h2>
<p>The Netflix documentary conveys the impression that Harry and Meghan have been uniquely victimised. But, aside from the alleged racism, many of the difficulties they faced are shared by all the royal families of Europe.</p>
<p>It is monarchy which is unique, in the extraordinary demands which it makes of close members of the royal family. The public tend to think that royals lead very privileged lives, in glittering palaces with lots of servants. But in truth it is a gilded cage.</p>
<p>In a piece <a href="https://theconversation.com/prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-why-half-in-half-out-just-isnt-an-option-for-royals-129726">written in 2020</a>, we said about the departure of Harry and Meghan: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>It should be possible for minor royals to opt out of the gilded cage if they find the restrictions too great. But opting out would need to be total: giving up not just their public duties but their public funding, their royal titles, their security – trying as far as possible to become private people.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>We leave viewers of the Netflix series to judge to what extent that has proved possible.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/196738/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert Hazell is Professor of Government and the Constitution at University College London</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bob Morris has received some funding from the Rowntree Foundation.
He is a non-stipendiary Honorary Senior Research Associate at the Constitution Unit, University College London.</span></em></p>Racism aside, many of the difficulties they face are shared by all the royal families of Europe.Robert Hazell, Professor of British Politics and Government & Founder of the Constitution Unit, UCLBob Morris, Honorary Senior Research Associate, Constitution Unit, UCLLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1963032022-12-09T13:04:04Z2022-12-09T13:04:04ZHarry & Meghan – what the first episodes reveal about Meghan’s reputation within the royal family<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/499992/original/file-20221209-33858-p3m533.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C4137%2C2445&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Duke and Duchess have revealed a host of previously unseen photographs for the documentary. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://media.netflix.com/en/only-on-netflix/81439256/assets/eyJpZCI6ImZrcmJjd211ZCIsIm5hbWUiOiJIYXJyeSAmIE1lZ2hhbiBfQXJjaGl2YWxfUGhvdG9ib290aC5qcGcifQ==">Courtesy of Prince Harry and Meghan, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>As an expert in the contemporary British monarchy, I watched the first three episodes of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s new <a href="https://www.netflix.com/tudum/articles/harry-meghan-documentary">Netflix docuseries</a>, Harry & Meghan, closely.</p>
<p>What came across most was how Meghan’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-does-intersectionality-mean-104937">gender, race and class intersected</a> in her treatment both by the media and by “the Firm” (an unofficial nickname for the British monarchy and its staff that describes the institution as a business) itself.</p>
<p>As with their <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-gkAM0XZMU">2021 Oprah interview</a>, this documentary is a forum for the couple to account for their treatment by the Firm. These kinds of royal confessionals risk damaging the monarchy, as they cast a light “behind the scenes” of an institution which <a href="https://manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk/9781526158758/">relies on magic and majesty</a> to maintain its image.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/meghan-and-harrys-oprah-interview-why-royal-confessionals-threaten-the-monarchy-156601">Meghan and Harry’s Oprah interview: why 'royal confessionals' threaten the monarchy</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Patriarchy and women’s bodies</h2>
<p>Princess Diana’s traumas in the royal family have been <a href="https://theconversation.com/spencer-how-diana-became-the-popular-culture-princess-170765">well covered</a> over the decades, including by <a href="https://archive.org/details/h20939297">the Panorama documentary</a> she used to tell her own story in 1995. Like Meghan, Diana spoke about her mental health and a lack of support from the Firm. Harry & Meghan also makes comparisons between Diana and Meghan, claiming that both women were hounded by the paparazzi throughout their royal lives. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2rlVhiXlcHU?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The trailer for Harry + Meghan.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Meghan talks about “men sitting in cars all the time” outside her house, waiting for her to leave. In any other situation, she says, this would amount to stalking. As Meghan mentions, gender matters here. Celebrities like <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt12673718/">Britney Spears</a> have spoken out about <a href="https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9780203715406/framing-celebrity-su-holmes-sean-redmond">the unique pressures women</a> face from tabloid intrusion. </p>
<p>The economy surrounding these women encompasses multiple industries, from cosmetic surgery to fashion brands, who benefit from paparazzi exploitation. Britney Spears’ body became an economy in itself as paparazzi pictures of her were <a href="https://www.insidehook.com/article/arts-entertainment/britney-spears-doc-reveals-staggering-profitability-paparazzi-culture">worth so much money</a>.</p>
<p>For royal women, this takes on a new imperative. The monarchy is reliant on women’s bodies for its reproduction – literally, the reproduction of heirs. Royal women’s bodies are fetishised as <a href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Diana_and_Beyond/v25zAwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover">reproductive of the nation</a>, as they birth the next “symbol” of Britishness. This also accounts for the hidden meaning behind those questions from within the royal family about the <a href="https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2021-03-08/oprah-winfrey-meghan-harry-archie-skin-color-racism">colour of Archie’s skin</a> – they are asking how “British” (or rather, how white) her baby might look.</p>
<p>It is not just about clothing and branding, but about how royal women’s bodies take on meaning that <a href="https://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/?id=p080302">connects femininity and the nation</a>. This is a <a href="https://theconversation.com/prince-andrew-the-monarchy-has-a-long-history-of-dismissing-womens-suffering-165927">patriarchal institution</a> that uses women’s bodies for its own ends.</p>
<h2>Respectability politics</h2>
<p>As the documentary shows, for Meghan this is not just about gender. Race and class come to play a part in the <a href="https://manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk/9781526158758/">intersectional pressures</a> she was placed under. Headlines like the Daily Mail’s “<a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/meghan-harry-racism-uk-tabloids-b2241223.html">(Almost) Straight Outta Compton</a>” are discussed as evidence of the racist coverage of the early days of the couple’s relationship.</p>
<p>Meghan also mentions the Firm’s discomfort with her acting career. She explains that there are assumptions made about Hollywood and the people who work in it. Acting is seen as too <em>déclassé</em> a profession to marry into the royal family, despite the fact that the Firm <a href="https://www.torrossa.com/en/resources/an/5015819#page=32">operates like a celebrity industry</a> in and of itself.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/499993/original/file-20221209-33805-3bblu5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Harry and Meghan photographed from behind, embracing on a dog walk in expansive fields, wearing matching green coats." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/499993/original/file-20221209-33805-3bblu5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/499993/original/file-20221209-33805-3bblu5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499993/original/file-20221209-33805-3bblu5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499993/original/file-20221209-33805-3bblu5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499993/original/file-20221209-33805-3bblu5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=564&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499993/original/file-20221209-33805-3bblu5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=564&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499993/original/file-20221209-33805-3bblu5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=564&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">One of the previously unseen photographs released for the documentary.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://media.netflix.com/en/only-on-netflix/81439256/assets/eyJpZCI6InBrY3R2bGdhdjgiLCJuYW1lIjoiSGFycnlfTWVnaGFuX0xpbWl0ZWRfU2VyaWVzX0VwaXNvZGVfMl8yMDg1NDkxXzAwXzQ2XzM0XzA2XzI3OTcwNDUucG5nIn0=">Courtesy of Prince Harry and Meghan, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Around the time of their wedding, tabloids were also representing Meghan’s father’s (Thomas Markle) side of the family in ways reminiscent of <a href="https://www.routledge.com/White-Trash-Race-and-Class-in-America/Newitz-Wray/p/book/9780415916929%22%22">“white trash” discourses</a>. “<a href="https://theconversation.com/class-stereotypes-chavs-white-trash-bogans-and-other-animals-22952">White trash</a>” is an American slur (equivalent to the UK’s “chav”) for an abject working class figure.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5748403/Meghans-uninvited-family-celebrates-wedding-Burger-King-crowns.html">The Daily Mail</a> reported on Meghan’s aunt and cousin spending the royal wedding wearing cardboard browns in a Burger King, a fast food chain associated with <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10350330500154634">working-class stereotypes</a>. Their meal was positioned in contrast to the upper class and aspirational one taking place at the same time in Windsor. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/499994/original/file-20221209-23893-cep7lw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A selfie of Harry and Meghan laughing in sunglasses and cuddling a pet dog." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/499994/original/file-20221209-23893-cep7lw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/499994/original/file-20221209-23893-cep7lw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499994/original/file-20221209-23893-cep7lw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499994/original/file-20221209-23893-cep7lw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499994/original/file-20221209-23893-cep7lw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499994/original/file-20221209-23893-cep7lw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499994/original/file-20221209-23893-cep7lw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The personal photographs are very different to the images of the royal family audiences are used to.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://media.netflix.com/en/only-on-netflix/81439256/assets/eyJpZCI6ImZrdHZsZ3N2ZCIsIm5hbWUiOiJIYXJyeV9NZWdoYW5fTGltaXRlZF9TZXJpZXNfRXBpc29kZV8zXzIwODU0OThfMDBfNDFfNTlfMDhfMjUyMTg1My5wbmcifQ==">Courtesy of Prince Harry and Meghan, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Black studies scholars like <a href="https://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/?id=p082481">Brittney Cooper</a> have referred to condemnation of the actions of people of colour as “respectability politics”. Inclusion into typically white spaces is undertaken through observing white, middle class norms, including being “mainstream, articulate, and clean cut, black but not too black, friendly, upbeat, and accommodating”.</p>
<p>Of course, the monarchy is perhaps the pinnacle of “respectable”: an institution enshrined as the peak of British society. The racism which has plagued Meghan, and the fact she was never allowed to achieve <a href="https://www.manchesterhive.com/view/9781526149343/9781526149343.00014.xml">racial uplift</a>, demonstrates how whiteness, gender and upper classness are used to police the boundaries of respectability.</p>
<h2>Femininity and the nation</h2>
<p>Women in the royal family are always subject to more pervasive attention than the men. Princess Diana and Kate Middleton have received intense scrutiny, from what they say and wear to speculation about <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-great-kate-wait-duchess-of-cambridge-doing-well-in-labour-at-london-s-st-mary-s-hospital-8725599.html">what’s going on in their wombs</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/499995/original/file-20221209-33857-4pofku.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Black and white photograph of Meghan sat on a kitchen counter in a gown and Harry in a suit without his jacket leaning in to kiss her." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/499995/original/file-20221209-33857-4pofku.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/499995/original/file-20221209-33857-4pofku.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499995/original/file-20221209-33857-4pofku.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499995/original/file-20221209-33857-4pofku.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=337&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499995/original/file-20221209-33857-4pofku.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499995/original/file-20221209-33857-4pofku.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/499995/original/file-20221209-33857-4pofku.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Harry and Meghan kiss in their kitchen.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://media.netflix.com/en/only-on-netflix/81439256/assets/eyJpZCI6InAzYzZiY3FidTgiLCJuYW1lIjoiSGFycnkgJiBNZWdoYW5fQXJjaGl2YWxfS2l0Y2hlbl8xLnBuZyJ9">Courtesy of Prince Harry and Meghan, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As Harry points out in the documentary, though, Meghan’s situation was unique. Meghan’s story tells us something fundamental about the British monarchy’s relationship to patriarchy and whiteness, and how the two are inseparable. </p>
<p>And media scholar Raka Shome writes in her book, <a href="https://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/?id=p080302">Diana and Beyond</a>, white femininity “is always a doing and not a being. It is always pushed and pulled, routed and rerouted to script national desires.”</p>
<p>The hounding of Meghan is one site of this push and pull. The scripts of white femininity, and therefore of nation, were fought and continue to be fought, over representations of her.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/196303/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Laura Clancy has received funding from the ESRC and the AHRC. </span></em></p>An expert in contemporary British monarchy analyses the first three episodes of Harry + Meghan, the headline-grabbing Netflix show from the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.Laura Clancy, Lecturer in Media, Lancaster UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1902892022-09-09T11:28:41Z2022-09-09T11:28:41ZIn 1953, ‘Queen-crazy’ American women looked to Elizabeth II as a source of inspiration – that sentiment never faded<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/483602/original/file-20220908-4832-gy0ml5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=110%2C44%2C3499%2C2371&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Queen Elizabeth II during a 1983 tour of California.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/queen-elizabeth-ii-departs-hoover-house-following-lunch-at-news-photo/1317022486?adppopup=true">George Rose/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In the spring of 1953, women from across the United States traveled to Britain – for many, it was their first time abroad.</p>
<p>The impetus for the trip was <a href="https://www.royal.uk/50-facts-about-queens-coronation-0">Queen Elizabeth II’s coronation</a>, held in Westminster Abbey on a rainy June 2 of that year. Among those making the journey were Peggy Webber, who traveled all the way from Iowa, and Geneva Valentine from Washington, D.C. For both women, whom I learned of while researching the monarchy and gender, the coronation provided an unprecedented opportunity to be part of a momentous occasion in which a woman was at the center of the story.</p>
<p>For almost 70 years, there has been a <a href="https://theconversation.com/as-the-uk-celebrates-queen-elizabeth-iis-platinum-jubilee-why-will-so-many-americans-also-be-cheering-her-on-184283">long-standing affection for Elizabeth</a> from across the Atlantic, especially among women. It may be of a less showy variety than the attention lavished on other, potentially more glamorous female members of the royal family, such as Princess Diana or the Duchesses of Cambridge and Sussex. But it endured. A <a href="https://today.yougov.com/topics/international/articles-reports/2022/02/24/queen-remains-americans-favorite-living-british-ro">Febuary 2022 poll</a> found that more than 60% of American women held a favorable opinion of Elizabeth. The survey found her to be the most popular of all living royals, with women generally holding the royals in greater esteem than men do.</p>
<p>In her own way, the queen quietly captured the imaginations of American women from the very beginning of her reign. As a <a href="https://www.bu.edu/history/profile/arianne-chernock/">historian of the British monarchy</a>, I know part of the interest stemmed from Americans’ abiding <a href="https://theconversation.com/as-the-uk-celebrates-queen-elizabeth-iis-platinum-jubilee-why-will-so-many-americans-also-be-cheering-her-on-184283">affection for the royal family</a> – something that transcended Elizabeth’s reign. </p>
<p>But for many American women, Elizabeth also represented something else. At a time when women were, in many cases, expected to conform to traditional roles of a housewife and homemaker, Elizabeth was ascending the throne of a powerful country. In the words of one psychologist interviewed for <a href="https://journals.dartmouth.edu/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Journals.woa/xmlpage/4/article/449#edn29">a 1953 Los Angeles Times article</a>, for the first time “the women of America have found a heroine who makes them feel superior to men.”</p>
<h2>Long-standing affection</h2>
<p>Just as American women in the 20th century followed Elizabeth’s evolution, from dutiful daughter to young bride and mother to conscientious sovereign, so did earlier generations take interest in Queen Victoria’s coronation, marriage and jubilee celebrations in the 19th century.</p>
<p>For even though Americans chose a different path with independence in 1776, the British royal family has always exerted a strong pull on the American psyche. In fact, that pull is perhaps even greater because it is uncomplicated by politics. It is <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-57559653">not U.S. tax dollars at work</a>, so Americans can take pleasure in the ceremonial and the romantic without being burdened by questions of what it costs and means to have a monarchy.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="US president Ronald Reagan" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/483604/original/file-20220908-27908-ei73cq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/483604/original/file-20220908-27908-ei73cq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/483604/original/file-20220908-27908-ei73cq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/483604/original/file-20220908-27908-ei73cq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/483604/original/file-20220908-27908-ei73cq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/483604/original/file-20220908-27908-ei73cq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/483604/original/file-20220908-27908-ei73cq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Ronald Reagan was one of 14 U.S. presidents who served during Queen Elizabeth II’s reign.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/the-queen-with-president-reagan-at-a-state-banquet-at-news-photo/52103686?adppopup=true">Tim Graham Photo Library via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There is a specifically gendered aspect to America’s love affair with the royals, too. When women traveled to London in 1953 – or, as second best, turned on their newly purchased television sets to <a href="https://www.americanheritage.com/great-coronation-war">tune into the coronation coverage</a> – they were not just interested in what the queen was wearing or the dashing figure cut by Prince Philip.</p>
<p>They were also fixated on the fact that so much fuss was being made over a woman at all, and a powerful one at that. As U.S. ambassador to Italy Clare Boothe Luce <a href="https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=30013444360">explained at the time</a>, this was “an assignment made to order for a woman.” Luce used this logic to convince President Dwight Eisenhower to send the journalist Fleur Cowles to the coronation as one of his official representatives.</p>
<p>Indeed, as Luce alluded to, there was something deliciously disruptive about Elizabeth’s reign. Against a postwar backdrop, when many American women were being urged to return to the home and take pride in the efficiency of their kitchens, here was a 25-year-old princess being elevated to a position of head of state, her every step reported and discussed. This was anomalous, and in ways that seemed to augur well for others of her sex.</p>
<p>Reporter John Kord Lagemann, <a href="https://journals.dartmouth.edu/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Journals.woa/1/xmlpage/4/article/449">writing in the Los Angeles Times</a> in 1953, captured this sentiment in a piece on “America’s Queen-Crazy Women.” Elizabeth, Lagemann noted, posed a challenge to patriarchy. Case in point was her marriage. Here, he wrote, the “situation is reversed” and the woman “commands.”</p>
<p>Elizabeth did not need to “play according to a man’s rules by acting demure and helpless.” Rather, she could “be as imperious as she pleases.”</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Queen Elizabeth II in a yellow and white dress and hat holds a bouquet of flowers while surrounded by well-wishers." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/483605/original/file-20220908-22-6hiarz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/483605/original/file-20220908-22-6hiarz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/483605/original/file-20220908-22-6hiarz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/483605/original/file-20220908-22-6hiarz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=395&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/483605/original/file-20220908-22-6hiarz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/483605/original/file-20220908-22-6hiarz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/483605/original/file-20220908-22-6hiarz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Queen Elizabeth II during a 1991 visit to Washington.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/queen-elizabeth-ii-makes-a-state-visit-to-the-united-states-news-photo/1041866866?adppopup=true">John Shelley Collection/Avalon/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Lagemann’s observations provide some clues to Elizabeth’s hold on American women. Even as the women’s liberation movement helped shift certain conversations, the queen continued to model an alternative path forward – one in which women could travel without their children, demonstrate their command of policy, be at the center of the photograph, take responsibility and even grow old in the public eye.</p>
<p>Elizabeth II will be mourned by many around the world, including the daughters and granddaughters of those “Queen-Crazy” Americans who traveled to London in 1953 for her coronation but have yet to see a female head of state installed in their own country.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/190289/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Arianne Chernock does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The new queen was a subversive model for American women of the 1950s, and many traveled to London for her coronation. Their daughters and granddaughters will be among those mourning the monarch’s death.Arianne Chernock, Professor of History, Boston UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1842832022-06-01T18:55:12Z2022-06-01T18:55:12ZAs the UK celebrates Queen Elizabeth II’s Platinum Jubilee, why will so many Americans also be cheering her on?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/466639/original/file-20220601-49160-84t9za.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=17%2C1068%2C5353%2C2892&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Polling backs it up – Americans really do look favorably on Queen Elizabeth II.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/BritainPlatinumJubilee/f23ccdce08c241d684a4501e47b81a82/photo?Query=jubilee&mediaType=photo&sortBy=arrivaldatetime:desc&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=4197&currentItemNo=4">AP Photo/Alberto Pezzal</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Whether it is reporting the <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/06/01/1102337108/sex-pistols-aim-to-give-queen-elizabeths-jubilee-a-touch-of-punk">role of the Sex Pistols</a> or <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/06/01/corgi-queen-platinum-jubilee/">that of the royal corgis</a>, U.S. media has suddenly taken an interest in a <a href="https://www.royal.uk/platinum-jubilee-central-weekend">peculiar four-day ceremony</a> taking place across the pond: Queen Elizabeth II’s Platinum Jubilee.</p>
<p>Starting on June 2, 2022, British subjects will be participating in street parties and other events marking the 70 years that the country’s monarch has remained on the throne. They won’t be alone in expressing affection for the queen. </p>
<p>In America, Elizabeth <a href="https://today.yougov.com/topics/international/articles-reports/2022/02/24/queen-remains-americans-favorite-living-british-ro">retains approval ratings</a> that would leave most political leaders envious. And even if the most high-profile U.S.-based royalists – Prince Harry and his American wife Meghan Markle – <a href="https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-prince-harry-attend-platinum-jubilee-service-thanksgiving-royal-family/">intend to be in the U.K.</a> for some of the ceremonies, many other supporters of Queen Elizabeth will be back in America, no doubt raising a cup of tea in her honor.</p>
<p>But what’s with Americans’ fascination with the British monarchy in the first place? It might seem strange, given the nation’s decision to sever ties with George III in 1776. No royal family from any other nation has induced the same level of scrutiny or celebration. </p>
<p>It’s important to recognize that British royals have been eliciting similar responses on American shores for the past 150 years</p>
<p>In 1860, Prince Albert Edward – the future King Edward VII – staged a surprisingly successful American tour, during which he was <a href="http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/A/bo5550062.html">mobbed by fans</a> in cities including Chicago; Albany, New York; and Detroit. In 1939, King George VI and Queen Elizabeth made similar headlines when they ate their <a href="http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/aboutfdr/pdfs/royal_picnicmenu.pdf">first hot dogs</a> in Hyde Park, New York, urged on by President Roosevelt and his wife, Eleanor. </p>
<p>And then there was the frenzy surrounding Prince Charles and Princess Diana’s visit to Washington in 1985. President Reagan may have mistakenly referred to Diana as “Princess David,” but no one will forget Diana’s turn on the dance floor with actor John Travolta.</p>
<p>Of course, there’s an element of pragmatism in the tradition of warm American receptions. After the American Revolution, the newly independent nation realized that it would need to maintain strong ties with the imperial motherland for diplomatic and security reasons; the War of 1812 proved to be the exception – rather than the rule – in 19th-century Anglo-American relations. </p>
<p>This “special relationship” would become only more vital during World War II and the Cold War that followed. President Roosevelt invited George VI to that picnic in 1939 not only to exchange pleasantries, but also to telegraph British and American unity in the face of German belligerence.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/75522/original/image-20150320-14633-1duvbom.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A black and white photo shows King George VI and Queen Elizabeth seated with FDR." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/75522/original/image-20150320-14633-1duvbom.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/75522/original/image-20150320-14633-1duvbom.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=317&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75522/original/image-20150320-14633-1duvbom.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=317&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75522/original/image-20150320-14633-1duvbom.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=317&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75522/original/image-20150320-14633-1duvbom.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75522/original/image-20150320-14633-1duvbom.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/75522/original/image-20150320-14633-1duvbom.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In 1939, when King George VI and Queen Elizabeth dined on hot dogs at FDR’s Hyde Park retreat, the two nations sought to convey a message of unity to the Nazis.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.macleans.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/1490129801.jpg">The National Archives</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But the emotion on display during royal visits also suggests a deep affective tie. Although the American revolutionaries long ago rejected colonial government, there has always been a certain degree of ambivalence about the crown. The Colonists, after all, had felt an intense and personal relationship with George III, whom they regarded as distinct from the British Parliament, even as many came to question the concept of hereditary sovereignty. </p>
<p>As late as 1775, Alexander Hamilton would defend George III in his “<a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KKxCAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=These+colonies+were+planted+and+settled+by+the+grants,+and+under+the+protection+of+English+kings%22+alexander+hamilton&source=bl&ots=1uUkZulOMR&sig=Hs-JCuJ8-q_Z7xlUUD9QUJtExA4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ndgLVfbuPKeX7QaU2YGoAg&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=These%20colonies%20were%20planted%20and%20settled%20by%20the%20grants%2C%20and%20under%20the%20protection%20of%20English%20kings%22%20alexander%20hamilton&f=false">The Farmer Refuted</a>” on the grounds that George III was “king of America, by virtue of a compact between us and the kings of Great Britain.” As Hamilton went on to explain, “[T]o disclaim the authority of a British Parliament over us, does by no means imply the dereliction of our allegiance to British Monarchs.”</p>
<p>In the wake of the Revolution, the routines, symbols, rituals and attitudes associated with the crown proved difficult to sacrifice. </p>
<p>These thorny aspects of the transition from colony to nation have been addressed in works by historians and academics <a href="http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/A/bo5550062.html">Elisa Tamarkin</a>, <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5149/9780807838860_mcconville">Brendan J. McConville</a> and, most recently, Eric Nelson. In “<a href="https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674979772">The Royalist Revolution</a>,” Nelson even goes so far as to suggest, provocatively, that the nation’s founders crafted the American presidency with the image of a strong king in mind. </p>
<p>Not everyone will buy Nelson’s thesis, but there’s no denying that Americans have made their own political dynasties: Instead of the Windsors, we have the Kennedys, Bushes and Clintons.</p>
<p>In 2018, American actress Meghan Markle went one step further <a href="https://www.royal.uk/royalwedding">by marrying into the British royal family</a>. Her relationship with <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/01/10/british-tabloids-drove-meghan-away-theyll-never-learn/">the British press</a> – and <a href="https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/pictures/meghan-markles-ups-and-downs-with-the-royal-family-timeline/">reportedly with some of her in-laws</a> – hasn’t been the smoothest, leading to a move across the Atlantic to the U.S. for her and husband, Prince Harry.</p>
<p>But despite that one American’s experience, Americans tend to look favorably on the family’s head. A <a href="https://today.yougov.com/topics/international/articles-reports/2022/02/24/queen-remains-americans-favorite-living-british-ro">February 2022 poll of Americans</a> found that 61% held a favorable view of Queen Elizabeth – the highest rating of any living member of the British royal family. </p>
<p><em>Editor’s note: This is an updated version of an <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-do-americans-fawn-over-british-royalty-39038">article first published</a> on March 20, 2015.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/184283/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Arianne Chernock does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The UK is set to spend four days celebrating the very long monarchy of Queen Elizabeth II. But as the Platinum Jubilee is marked, why do so many Americans also fawn over the British royal family?Arianne Chernock, Professor of History, Boston UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1820522022-05-02T20:43:51Z2022-05-02T20:43:51ZFrom dummy spits to a ‘sleaze machine’: Tina Brown’s The Palace Papers is a delectable account of a soap opera family<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460746/original/file-20220502-19-33mfl8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C78%2C3389%2C2478&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Queen Elizabeth II, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle photographed in 2018.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">John Stillwell/AP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Those of us interested in biographies of the House of Windsor have awaited Tina Brown’s The Palace Papers with much anticipation. Her 2007 book, <a href="https://www.penguin.com.au/books/the-diana-chronicles-9781784758868">The Diana Chronicles</a>, was a New York Times bestseller, cementing Brown’s reputation as a royal biographer exemplar.</p>
<p>A former editor-in-chief of Tatler, Vanity Fair, and The New Yorker, in 2000 Brown was awarded the CBE (Commander of the Order of the British Empire) by Queen Elizabeth II for her services to journalism.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Review: The Palace Papers: Inside the House of Windsor - the Truth and the Turmoil, Tina Brown (Century, 2022)</em></p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460739/original/file-20220502-12-5ub6b4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460739/original/file-20220502-12-5ub6b4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460739/original/file-20220502-12-5ub6b4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=853&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460739/original/file-20220502-12-5ub6b4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=853&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460739/original/file-20220502-12-5ub6b4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=853&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460739/original/file-20220502-12-5ub6b4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1071&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460739/original/file-20220502-12-5ub6b4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1071&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460739/original/file-20220502-12-5ub6b4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1071&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Brown’s authority to tell the story of the last 25 years of the House of Windsor is signalled clearly in the book’s 10-page acknowledgements section, where every royal biographer, historian and media commentator A-lister appears as a source.</p>
<p>The endorsement on the book’s front cover from Lady Anne Glenconner, one of Princess Margaret’s closest friends, offers a double whammy in one short statement: “Tina Brown has inside knowledge and writes well”. These are the very two things lacked by so many popular royal biographers — genuinely good contacts and writerly panache.</p>
<p>Many of Brown’s sources are so impeccable and well-placed she can’t even name them: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>There are so many who helped make this narrative more accurate, more fair and more honest but whom, because of ongoing or intimate past relationships with the Palace, I cannot name or thank.</p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460677/original/file-20220502-56362-1yih9h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460677/original/file-20220502-56362-1yih9h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460677/original/file-20220502-56362-1yih9h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460677/original/file-20220502-56362-1yih9h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460677/original/file-20220502-56362-1yih9h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460677/original/file-20220502-56362-1yih9h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460677/original/file-20220502-56362-1yih9h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460677/original/file-20220502-56362-1yih9h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Tina Brown pictured in 2018.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Brent N. Clarke/AP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Her book paints a complex picture of how the royals and their scandals from the late 1990s to the present day have been amplified from without by a sinister network of media attackers, who with their stings and exposés, mounted a constant and stealth-like attack on the royals’ privacy. </p>
<p>It offers a portrait, too, of how the family’s woes have been orchestrated and amplified from within by a series of press advisers — (including Mark Bolland, aka “Blackadder”, Prince Charles’s Deputy Private Secretary from 1997-2002) — who used their respective press offices in Buckingham Palace (the Queen and Prince Philip), St James’ Palace/Clarence House (Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall) and Kensington Palace (William and Catherine, and prior to 2019, Harry and Meghan) to jostle for media exposure and control of the royal narrative.</p>
<p>A picture emerges of a family that does what all families do, i.e. gossips about one another, but also briefs against each other.</p>
<p>Brown recalls how “during the so-called War of the Waleses”, Charles’s camp did as much backgrounding and leaking as Diana’s via the tabloids they both professed to hate. “Charles spun furiously; he was just less good at it”.</p>
<p>And “whatever the high-minded stance towards the vulgarity of publicity”, the competing press offices are still at it today: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>There is an unwritten rule that they will not step on one another’s media moment in deference to the royal hierarchy … though in Prince Charles’s case, new bombs from outlier family dramas have a habit of exploding whenever he is about to step up to a podium.</p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460744/original/file-20220502-18-cgljfm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460744/original/file-20220502-18-cgljfm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460744/original/file-20220502-18-cgljfm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=385&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460744/original/file-20220502-18-cgljfm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=385&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460744/original/file-20220502-18-cgljfm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=385&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460744/original/file-20220502-18-cgljfm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=484&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460744/original/file-20220502-18-cgljfm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=484&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460744/original/file-20220502-18-cgljfm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=484&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Prince Charles pictured in February. He ‘spun furiously’, according to Brown.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Chris Jackson/AP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Palace Papers offers a glimpse of the intersection of “prime ministers, influential courtiers, powerful spin doctors, lowly hangers-on, lovers, rivals and even outright enemies” in the royal drama, although it is often uncertain which individuals are the powerful spin doctors (the press officers or some of the royals themselves?), or the hangers-on or even the “outright enemies”. </p>
<p>The fact that tales about royal shenanigans so often blur these boundaries makes for some entertaining reading.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/from-fairytale-to-gothic-ghost-story-how-40-years-of-biopics-showed-princess-diana-on-screen-173648">From fairytale to gothic ghost story: how 40 years of biopics showed Princess Diana on screen</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Too much complaining, too much explaining</h2>
<p>Perhaps the royals themselves, in their efforts to curate their own publicity, are shown to create the greatest threat to the Windsors’ long held mantra of “never complain, never explain”.</p>
<p>The key transgressors in this regard were the late Diana, whose “going on the record” revelations about life as a royal set the pattern for the royal whinge-fest of the next 25 years, as well as Prince Harry and Meghan Markle who are laid bare as the most desperate and ill-judged architects of their own fumbling narratives about feeling miserable, misrepresented, and misunderstood.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460680/original/file-20220502-17-fz4qv7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460680/original/file-20220502-17-fz4qv7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460680/original/file-20220502-17-fz4qv7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=358&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460680/original/file-20220502-17-fz4qv7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=358&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460680/original/file-20220502-17-fz4qv7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=358&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460680/original/file-20220502-17-fz4qv7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460680/original/file-20220502-17-fz4qv7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460680/original/file-20220502-17-fz4qv7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">British newspapers on a stand in London after the US television interview by Oprah Winfrey of Britain’s Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, 08 March 2021.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Facundo Arrizabalaga/EPA</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Brown doesn’t add any startingly new revelations about Harry’s and Meghan’s move away from the royal family but she chronicles the saga of their discontent and eventual exile from the royal fold in the same considered and reflective way she captured the Diana years. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/if-princess-diana-needed-a-legacy-statement-shes-got-it-in-harry-and-meghan-156745">If Princess Diana needed a legacy statement, she's got it in Harry and Meghan</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In the period immediately after Harry’s and Meghan’s wedding, </p>
<blockquote>
<p>There was a histrionic (even hysterical) quality to the way the Sussexes declared they wanted to be private. A desire for privacy is understood (if not respected) by the media; an obsession with secrecy is not, particularly when combined with high-profile socialising. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The key to being private in the Royal Family, she writes, “is to truly — not performatively — want to be so.” Ouch.</p>
<p>She says of Meghan in particular:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[S]he couldn’t wait to cram down every cake offered on the celebrity buffet … An invitation from Elton John to fly private to his South-of-France villa just two days after a sun break in Ibiza to celebrate Meghan’s 38th birthday? Two big slices please! A hop back to the US Open in New York to watch her pal Serena play [tennis]? Yummy, yummy! </p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460674/original/file-20220502-17-wgibmh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460674/original/file-20220502-17-wgibmh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460674/original/file-20220502-17-wgibmh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460674/original/file-20220502-17-wgibmh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460674/original/file-20220502-17-wgibmh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460674/original/file-20220502-17-wgibmh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=559&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460674/original/file-20220502-17-wgibmh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=559&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460674/original/file-20220502-17-wgibmh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=559&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Meghan Markle and a friend watch Serena Williams play at Wimbledon in 2019.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Will Oliver/EPA</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Sussexes’ dummy spit and royal exit reached its climax, Brown claims, when they noticed their family portrait — so prominently on display at the Queen’s elbow during her 2018 Christmas broadcast — was missing in the 2019 line-up of family photos. </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The Queen told the director of the broadcast that all the displayed photographs were fine to remain in the shot except for one. Her Majesty pointed at a portrait of Harry, Meghan and baby Archie. ‘That one,’ said the Queen. ‘I suppose we don’t need that one’.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Queen’s no nonsense approach to dispatching troublesome family members (although not her son, Andrew) is captured in another anecdote told by a top royal courtier about how the scene in Stephen Frears’s 2006 film The Queen, where the monarch shoos away a noble stag (symbol of Diana?) before it can be hunted down, is highly inaccurate. Far from acting as the stag’s protector, he said, “‘The Queen would have shot it’”.</p>
<h2>‘Collaborating’</h2>
<p>When the Sussexes’ prematurely announced on their website “Sussex Royal” their proposal for a new working model of how they would remain members of the royal family, half-in and half-out, it was the Queen’s turn to have a dummy spit. The declaration that they would continue to “collaborate” with her “as if the monarch were the co-executive producer of a TV series” sent the Palace ballistic. </p>
<p>The Queen, Brown reminds us, “does not collaborate. She commands … as her impetuous grandson was about to find out”. No royal highness status, no royal patronages, no military titles, no publicly funded security, and no money from the <a href="https://www.royal.uk/royal-finances-0">Sovereign Grant</a>. </p>
<p>Brown’s prose can delight in ways that the more plodding printed biographies and low-grade television documentaries fail to do. During the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee, for instance,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The rest of the family were dispatched on a Commonwealth charm offensive. Charles and Camilla hauled ass to Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea. William and Kate, fending off pregnancy questions, were dispatched to Singapore, Malaysia, Tuvalu and the Solomon Islands. Prince Andrew, with his usual perfect pitch, took a private jet to visit a Mumbai slum.</p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460675/original/file-20220502-16-6k2rji.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460675/original/file-20220502-16-6k2rji.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460675/original/file-20220502-16-6k2rji.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=374&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460675/original/file-20220502-16-6k2rji.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=374&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460675/original/file-20220502-16-6k2rji.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=374&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460675/original/file-20220502-16-6k2rji.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=470&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460675/original/file-20220502-16-6k2rji.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=470&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460675/original/file-20220502-16-6k2rji.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=470&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Prince Andrew (centre) visits the Khumbharwada area, a potter’s colony in Mumbai’s Dharavi slums, in May 2012.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Divyakant Solanki/EPA</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>And for far too much of his time on Earth, Prince Andrew has proven himself to be “a coroneted sleaze machine”. Brown reports that a visit to the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Annenberg">former US ambassador to the UK</a> Walter Annenberg’s house in the 1990s saw the prince, much to the ambassador’s wife’s disgust, “holed up in his bedroom for two days apparently watching porn”.</p>
<p>Of Harry’s and Meghan’s wedding, Brown says: “For the Palace, the kumbaya moment (of the wedding ceremony) was even more remarkable because of the shit-show that preceded it”; and 2019 brought new lows: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>While the Duke and Duchess of Sussex went off to implode in a rented $13 million waterfront mansion on Vancouver Island, Prince Andrew, in November 2019, decided to strap on a suicide vest and sit down for an ask-me-anything interview with (the BBC’s) Emily Maitlis.</p>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/prince-andrew-a-legal-expert-explains-the-settlement-with-virginia-giuffre-177255">Prince Andrew: a legal expert explains the settlement with Virginia Giuffre</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Gossipy tidbits about the royals appear on every page.</p>
<p>Stories about Philip’s long-rumoured — and always denied — relationships with other women make an appearance.</p>
<p>The writer, John Mortimer, meanwhile, seated next to Princess Margaret at an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Souls_College,_Oxford">All Souls College</a> dinner in 2000, is given a glimpse into the old world of royal racism when the princess says: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>I do hope my sister will come and stay with me in Mustique … She’s so tired after this ghastly Commonwealth prime minister conference. Every day a different blackamoor crying on her shoulder and you know, she’s so wonderful. She knows all their names!</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Après moi, le déluge</h2>
<p>The narrative’s pace can be patchy occasionally. A too-long chapter, “Snoopers” that details the News of the World hacking scandals of the early 2000s, serves as a framework in which to understand the royals’ — particularly Harry’s and William’s — deep distrust of the media. But it seems fuelled, one senses, by a personal grudge Brown has for Murdoch’s <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/apr/25/rupert-murdoch-harold-evans-times">firing of her husband</a>, the late Sir Harold Evans, as editor of The Times in 1982. It’s an understandable grudge, but a chapter that loses sight of the royal saga.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460671/original/file-20220502-26-y0mwag.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C3494%2C1676&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460671/original/file-20220502-26-y0mwag.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C3494%2C1676&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460671/original/file-20220502-26-y0mwag.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460671/original/file-20220502-26-y0mwag.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460671/original/file-20220502-26-y0mwag.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460671/original/file-20220502-26-y0mwag.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460671/original/file-20220502-26-y0mwag.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460671/original/file-20220502-26-y0mwag.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Andrew arrive for a service of thanksgiving for the life of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, at Westminster Abbey in London on March 29.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Richard Pohle/AP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Palace Papers, charts the choppy waters of the good ship Windsor as it careens its way towards the inevitable demise of one of the greatest assets the crown has ever had, Queen Elizabeth II. The biography opens with a prologue titled “Kryptonite” and closes with an epilogue, “Embers”, charting the various metaphorical fires, tsunamis, and “hurricane of scandal[s]” that occurred in between them.</p>
<p>After the Queen’s death, predicts Brown, </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Amidst the deluge, the tsunami, the engulfing torrent of world mourning, the man [Prince Charles] who has spent seven decades in the waiting room of his destiny will finally walk through its door.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Or perhaps Brown should have said, “cling to his life craft for dear life and hope to alight on shore”.</p>
<h2>The non-royal born women — an anchor?</h2>
<p>Brown’s thesis is that the non-royal born Windsor women will provide an anchor for the House of Windsor as well as steer a steady course for the institution into the future. </p>
<p>Camilla, Catherine and Sophie Wessex (Prince Edward’s wife) — whose lives have been shaped by their solid, home counties’ middle-class family backgrounds — emerge as the beacons of hope.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460676/original/file-20220502-20-wg20nx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460676/original/file-20220502-20-wg20nx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460676/original/file-20220502-20-wg20nx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=406&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460676/original/file-20220502-20-wg20nx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=406&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460676/original/file-20220502-20-wg20nx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=406&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460676/original/file-20220502-20-wg20nx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=510&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460676/original/file-20220502-20-wg20nx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=510&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460676/original/file-20220502-20-wg20nx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=510&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge; Prince William, Duke of Cambridge; Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall; and Charles, Prince of Wales at the world premiere of the James Bond film No Time To Die in London last year.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Neil Hall/EPA</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Palace Papers is bookended with the palace edict after the Diana years that “never again” would the institution allow another royal to overshadow the figure of the sovereign. </p>
<p>It seems a real possibility that “Never again” will we witness a reign like that of Queen Elizabeth II’s — a note of genuine foreboding in an otherwise irreverent, delectable and highly entertaining account of the biggest soap opera family on Earth.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/182052/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Giselle Bastin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A new book telling the story of the last 25 years of the House of Windsor reveals a family that briefs against each other freely.Giselle Bastin, Associate Professor of English, Flinders UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1730952021-12-02T18:04:22Z2021-12-02T18:04:22ZMeghan Markle: Mail on Sunday loses appeal in privacy case – the judgment explained<p>Associated Newspapers Limited (ANL) the publisher of the Daily Mail, the Mail on Sunday and MailOnline, has lost an appeal in its three-year legal battle against Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex, over the Mail on Sunday’s publication of extracts from a letter written by the duchess to her father, Thomas Markle, in August 2018.</p>
<p>The duchess sued for copyright infringement and breach of privacy, arguing that the letter to her father had been “private and personal”. High Court judge Mr Justice Warby issued a <a href="https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Duchess-of-Sussex-v-Associated-2021-EWCH-273-Ch.pdf">summary judgment</a> in favour of the duchess in February 2021 which upheld her claim of breach of privacy and copyright infringement. </p>
<p>A <a href="https://www.jmw.co.uk/services-for-you/media-law/blog/meghan-markle-awarded-summary-judgment-against-mail-what-does-it-mean">summary judgment means</a> that in this case the judge ruled there was no need to go to trial in order to reach a determination. This is because ANL’s defence had no real prospect of success.</p>
<p>ANL was given permission to appeal and brought fresh evidence to support its argument that the case should go to trial. But the Court of Appeal <a href="https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Sussex-v-Associated-News-judgment-021221.pdf">has stated</a> that, even in light of the new evidence, Warby had been correct in granting the summary judgment, and therefore that the Mail on Sunday was liable for copyright infringement and breach of privacy. </p>
<h2>Copyright infringement</h2>
<p>Copyright protects things such as writings – including, as in this case, a letter. The copyright in the contents of the letter belongs to the person who wrote the letter – not the recipient. To use someone’s copyright-protected letter without their permission is copyright infringement, unless an exception applies. </p>
<p>ANL argued that its use of the letter fell within a copyright exception, known as “<a href="https://www.copyrightuser.org/understand/exceptions/news-reporting/">fair dealing</a>” for the purposes of reporting current events. But for this exception to apply, certain criteria have to be met – including that the purpose of the use is for reporting current events and the amount taken was fair. </p>
<p>The summary judgment found that the Mail on Sunday’s printing of the letter had been for the purpose of reporting its contents – which was not a current event. Warby also ruled that the amount of material from the letter published by the newspaper had been too great to be fair and was irrelevant and disproportionate to any legitimate reporting purpose.</p>
<p>Appealing his decision, ANL argued that Meghan’s father, Thomas Markle, wanted to publish the letter because he felt an article published in the US by <a href="https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-dad-thomas-markle-letter-after-wedding/">People Magazine</a>, featuring interviews with friends of the duchess portraying her as a “caring daughter” who had intended the letter as an “olive branch”, had been inaccurate. But the court ruled that the contents of the letter did not support this point, as it mostly reinforced the points made against him in the People Article.</p>
<p>The court also disagreed with ANL’s submission that the use of material from the letter was in the public interest. The public interest defence can be used to stop copyright enforcement in the name of free speech – but it only applies in special circumstances. It is a very rare for this defence to justify copyright infringement, particularly where a fair dealing defence also fails. So, it is unsurprising that the Mail on Sunday also failed on this defence. </p>
<p>So the Court of Appeal ruled that none of these defences applied and upheld Warby’s judgment that the Mail on Sunday had infringed Meghan Markle’s copyright in the contents of the letter when they published it. </p>
<h2>Privacy</h2>
<p>The duchess also sued ANL for misuse of private information. To make this claim, a claimant must demonstrate “<a href="https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/speech_100825.pdf">a reasonable expectation of privacy</a>”. ANL argued that Meghan thought the letter might be leaked and therefore did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of the letter. </p>
<p>To support this contention, it presented evidence from Jason Knauf, former communications secretary to the Sussexes, who claimed in a witness statement that the letter had been written with the expectation it might become public.</p>
<p>But court of appeal judges, Sir Geoffrey Vos, Dame Victoria Sharp and Lord Justice Bean, upheld Warby’s decision to grant summary judgment, and ruled that the duchess had a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in the contents of the letter. “Those contents were personal, private and not matters of legitimate public interest,” Vos, the Master of the Rolls, said in a statement read aloud in court. </p>
<p>ANL also argued in its appeal that the duchess had shared the letter with Omid Scobie and Caroline Durand, authors of a book about the duke and duchess called Finding Freedom. To make this point, ANL also relied on Knauf’s evidence, which disclosed that he had provided some information to the authors of the book with Meghan’s knowledge. This, the publisher argued, destroyed her reasonable expectation of privacy by putting the letter into the public domain. </p>
<p>But the court found that even if Meghan had shared a quote from the letter with the authors of the book, she still had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the detailed contents of the letter, so the Mail on Sunday had breached Meghan’s privacy rights by publishing its contents. </p>
<p>Having lost the case on appeal, the Mail on Sunday will have to do four things:
1) publish a correction and apology
2) pay damages (likely in the form of account of profits)
3) destroy copies of the letter in their possession
4) be subject to an injunction that stops them from infringing Meghan’s copyright and privacy rights in the future. </p>
<p>It is not yet known whether ANL will pursue a further appeal to the UK Supreme Court. In order to do this, they would need to seek permission from the Court of Appeal.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/173095/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hayleigh Bosher does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>How the UK Court of Appeal reached its decision.Hayleigh Bosher, Senior Lecturer in Intellectual Property Law, Brunel University LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1579312021-04-08T12:44:38Z2021-04-08T12:44:38ZWhy young people feel safer talking about suicide online than in real life<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/391916/original/file-20210326-15-1rc3e6u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C3840%2C2160&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Being dismissed in real life is a key reason that people turn to online spaces for support</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/black-teenager-playing-video-games-on-1492475858">Motortion Films/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>After <a href="https://theconversation.com/meghan-and-harrys-oprah-interview-why-british-media-coverage-could-backfire-156424">Oprah Winfrey’s interview with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry</a>, much-needed conversations about mental health and specifically suicide opened up in society. Viewers heard Meghan talk candidly about a very difficult time in her life, describing how gradually, a claustrophobic sense of being trapped with no way out had left her feeling like she didn’t want to be alive anymore.</p>
<p>Although Meghan’s openness was praised by many mental health charities and experts across the world, her account was questioned and even mocked <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9338343/PIERS-MORGAN-Meghan-Harrys-nauseating-two-hour-Oprah-whine-athon-disgraceful-diatribe.html">in some news outlets</a>.</p>
<h2>Seeking support</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/4/2120">Our research</a> at the University of Birmingham shows that invalidating people’s experiences of suicidality (another term for suicidal ideation and suicide attempts) is common. It’s also deeply distressing for those on the receiving end. In the study, which explores how 17-23-year-olds who are at risk of suicide seek help, participants shared how health professionals would often dismiss their experiences of self-harm and suicidality. As this research participant told us: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>They asked me “are you getting suicidal thoughts? Are you suicidal?” and when I said “yes”. Especially this one doctor, I won’t name names, but he was like “you wouldn’t do it anyway”.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Such dismissive attitudes often leave people feeling hopeless and helpless, as this participant revealed: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The GP said, when I went into my low mood, he was like “you have got a really nice supportive family so you are going to be okay”. I was just thinking “you don’t know anything”. He not only made that assumption, but he introduced that concept in the room. I had nowhere to go.</p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Teenage girl in flannel shirt looking at person in purple top opposite her" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/391918/original/file-20210326-15-5cxp4u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/391918/original/file-20210326-15-5cxp4u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391918/original/file-20210326-15-5cxp4u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391918/original/file-20210326-15-5cxp4u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391918/original/file-20210326-15-5cxp4u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391918/original/file-20210326-15-5cxp4u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391918/original/file-20210326-15-5cxp4u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">People don’t share these experiences because they don’t think they’ll be taken seriously by friends, family and even professionals.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/teenage-girl-suffering-depression-visiting-counsellor-343220099">SpeedKingz/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>One of the main reasons people gave for not sharing these experiences was that they didn’t believe they’d be taken seriously – by friends, by family and even by professionals. Many feared being shunned, misunderstood or ridiculed if they sought help or spoke out. As another participant revealed:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>If you try and seek help and you get like a “you are doing this on purpose for a different reason, or for attention”, it makes a mockery of what you were feeling.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Young people in our study described how they wished professionals would address suicidality, with many detailing their experiences of asking for help from health professionals only to be turned away or dismissed.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>If you are sat there explaining you are struggling and you need help, then they should listen and not be like “you are just having a bad week” kind of thing.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Safe spaces online</h2>
<p><a href="https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcpp.13245">Another</a> <a href="https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/perspective/covid-and-suicide-prevention.aspx">study</a>, also at the University of Birmingham, has explored self-harm and suicide related discussions across social media. It shows that invalidating people’s experiences of suicidality in real life is a key reason that young people turn to online spaces for support and understanding.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Three young people sitting on a sofa using phones with social media notification graphics over their heads" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/391921/original/file-20210326-15-goep3o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/391921/original/file-20210326-15-goep3o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391921/original/file-20210326-15-goep3o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391921/original/file-20210326-15-goep3o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391921/original/file-20210326-15-goep3o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391921/original/file-20210326-15-goep3o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/391921/original/file-20210326-15-goep3o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The fact that young people feel so much safer online says a lot about how society handles mental health.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/young-adults-on-couch-using-social-1356777203">Rawpixel.com/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Against the background of having been dismissed as “attention seeking” in hospital, for example, or ostracised by friends, participants recounted feeling “safe”, “heard” and “accepted” in online spaces that might appear from the outside to be anything but that. The internet and social media may be typically associated with confrontation and other unpleasant experiences, but they can provide incredibly supportive environments for some people.</p>
<p>Though it’s not without risk, social media offers spaces in which people’s stories of self-harm and suicide, and their complex social causes, can be listened to openly and without judgement. One participant said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Having someone else acknowledge what you’re going through and to say that they care about you and to show that they see you, it helps a lot to feel like you’re…like you matter.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>That a person at their most vulnerable may feel the need to turn to strangers online, however, is a damning indictment of how we, as a society, treat those experiencing suicidality. Dismissive or negative attitudes are often the reason some people are worried about disclosing the true extent of their suicidality and feel shameful about seeking help from loved ones. <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/4/2120">Our study</a> shows that some young people feel more comfortable sharing their experiences with those who aren’t close to them. And although social media could also foster unhealthy attitudes towards suicide, for some it offers a vital space to speak openly.</p>
<p>Suicide can affect anyone regardless of age, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and gender. While for many, suicide may be unthinkable and at the far edges of everyday experience, for others feeling suicidal is a lived daily reality; one that we need to acknowledge, listen to and take responsibility for.</p>
<p>There’s an urgent need to create safe spaces in society (and in mental health services) in which people can share their experiences without being dismissed, disbelieved or rejected. Although online spaces may be at times concerning, the lack of judgement that they offer to people who describe feeling suicidal needs to be mirrored in the offline world. Invalidating these experiences only serves to perpetuate our culture of secrecy and stigma.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/157931/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anna Lavis received funding from the Wellcome Trust and Samaritans to undertake the research on which this article draws. She acts as an advisor to Facebook/Instagram on tackling online harms.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Maria Michail does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Social media doesn’t always offer comfort, but the space and support it can provide should be mirrored offlineMaria Michail, Senior Birmingham Fellow, University of BirminghamAnna Lavis, Lecturer in Medical Anthropology, University of BirminghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1571042021-03-16T17:15:09Z2021-03-16T17:15:09ZWill the Meghan/Harry revelations change Canadian attitudes about the monarchy?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389568/original/file-20210315-23-1ialflz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C5048%2C2448&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, is seen being interviewed by Oprah Winfrey. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Rick Rycroft)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>A day after <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/03/07/world/meghan-harry-oprah-interview">Oprah Winfrey’s interview</a> with Prince Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, was broadcast in North America, an <a href="https://researchco.ca/2021/03/01/canadians-monarchy-2021/">online poll</a> suggested only one-quarter of Canadians felt that Canada should remain a monarchy.</p>
<p>Conducted two weeks before the interview aired, the survey of 1,000 Canadian adults by opinion firm Research Co. also found that only one-fifth of them wanted Prince Charles to succeed Queen Elizabeth.</p>
<p>In our upcoming book <em><a href="https://www.routledge.com/Revealing-Britains-Systemic-Racism-The-Case-of-Meghan-Markle-and-the/Ducey-Feagin/p/book/9780367765415">Revealing Britain’s Systemic Racism: The Case of Meghan Markle and the Royal Family</a></em>, we apply systemic racism theory and the concept of the <a href="https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-White-Racial-Frame%3A-Centuries-of-Racial-Framing-Feagin/05c6b0c7fbea7170df8c5aa50c1c2334a3daa824?p2df">white racial frame</a> to assess the implications of Meghan’s entry into the British Royal Family. The white racial frame is an organized set of racialized stereotypes, emotions and discriminatory inclinations that motivate white people to discriminate. </p>
<p>A consequence of this frame is what we have termed <em>social alexithymia</em> — an incapacity to understand the painful experiences of oppressed people. Hostile white reactions towards the Duchess of Sussex following the Oprah interview — from <a href="https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1410034/Donald-Trump-reaction-Meghan-Markle-interview-comment-steve-bannon-jason-miller">Donald Trump</a>, <a href="https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/tv/story/2021-03-09/piers-morgan-leaves-good-morning-britain-meghan-markle">Piers Morgan</a>, Megyn Kelly, <a href="https://meaww.com/lady-colin-campbell-says-meghan-markle-is-not-first-biracial-royal-family-member">Lady Colin Campbell</a>, <a href="https://ca.movies.yahoo.com/tucker-carlson-invokes-911-mocking-meghan-markle-oprah-interview-084417404.html">Tucker Carlson</a> and even her own father, <a href="https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/meghan-s-father-thomas-markle-says-the-royals-are-not-racist-1.5339428">Thomas Markle</a> — indicate that social alexithymia is common. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1368980815800057863"}"></div></p>
<p>By questioning enduring beliefs about racial progressiveness in the U.K., our book provides an account of how Meghan’s experiences as a biracial member of the Royal Family highlights contemporary forms of British racism. We must challenge romanticized notions of racial inclusivity in Canada, too. We have a moral obligation to do so. </p>
<h2>Defensive of the Royal Family</h2>
<p>Canadians who support the monarchy will likely not be swayed by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s revelations. They are likely to become more defensive of the Queen and other royals. </p>
<p>Those who believe that Canada and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-a-post-racial-british-society-remains-a-myth-even-in-universities-93607">U.K. are post-racial</a> and that we live in a <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/color-blindness-is-counterproductive/405037/">colour-blind</a> world will also likely maintain those beliefs. <a href="https://globalnews.ca/news/7632579/canada-systemic-racism-foundation/">Canadians</a> who believe that systemic racism is built into our nation’s institutions, on the other hand, will be less surprised by the couple’s revelations.</p>
<p>We should not assume that a desire to cut ties with the Royal Family is the same as an acceptance that systemic racism is a problem or even real. </p>
<p>Look at the media coverage surrounding the death of <a href="https://globalnews.ca/news/5194869/colten-boushie-documentary-racism-prairies/">Colten Boushie</a>, an Indigenous man from Cree Red Pheasant First Nation, and the not-guilty verdict of the white farmer who killed him to understand why. </p>
<p>That coverage exemplified colonialist and white racial framing. Chris Andersen, a Métis scholar-activist and dean of native studies at the University of Alberta, put the issue best. On his now-defunct Twitter feed, he tweeted in the aftermath of the verdict:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Hey, journalists, if you want to bring clarity to important issues around the Stanley verdict, stop asking dumb questions like ‘do you think race was involved?’ If you can’t get over that hump as your starting point, you’re not helping.” </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The expression of racial hostility and discrimination by white Canadians towards people of colour takes an imposing array of damaging forms, from blatant discrimination to subtler and covert discrimination. <a href="https://globalnews.ca/news/7643596/strathcona-high-school-white-alliance//">Recent examples</a> illustrate the enduring presence of everyday racism in the white Canadian mind. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389566/original/file-20210315-23-p1uzer.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Liberal MP Robert-Falcon Ouellette stands in the House of Commons" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389566/original/file-20210315-23-p1uzer.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389566/original/file-20210315-23-p1uzer.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=437&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389566/original/file-20210315-23-p1uzer.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=437&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389566/original/file-20210315-23-p1uzer.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=437&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389566/original/file-20210315-23-p1uzer.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=550&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389566/original/file-20210315-23-p1uzer.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=550&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389566/original/file-20210315-23-p1uzer.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=550&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Liberal MP Robert-Falcon Ouellette rises in the House of Commons in Ottawa in May 2016.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Liberal MP <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/robert-falcon-ouellette-faces-racism-during-mayoral-campaign-1.2686918">Robert-Falcon Ouellette</a> encountered racist obscenities during his mayoral campaign in 2014 in Winnipeg. “Go back to drinking. That’s where Indians belong,” he was told. </p>
<p>Ouellette captured how irrational racism is:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“You know, I have my PhD, two master’s degrees and a bachelor’s degree. I was in the army for 18 years, and no matter, it seems, what I do, for some people it’s never enough.” </p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Effecting racial change</h2>
<p>As we consider the relative inability of any one person or interview to single-handedly change minds and hearts, let alone systemic racism, we might consider what U.S. <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/opinion/30herbert.html">historian Howard Zinn</a> once said about former president Barack Obama. </p>
<p>Explaining why he was not disappointed in Obama for his failure to push forward aggressively on labour, feminist and civil rights, Zinn remarked: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“If there is going to be change, real change, it will have to work its way from the bottom up, from the people themselves. That’s how change happens.” </p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is important wisdom for people waiting for the Duchess of Sussex or any individual to effect real change when it comes to systemic oppression. A major international movement involving millions of ordinary people of all racial and national backgrounds is needed to bring about the kind of change that so many whites unrealistically fear Meghan symbolizes and others unrealistically hope she will usher in. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389577/original/file-20210315-17-zxvqdp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Harry and Meghan arrive at the annual Commonwealth Day service." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389577/original/file-20210315-17-zxvqdp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389577/original/file-20210315-17-zxvqdp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389577/original/file-20210315-17-zxvqdp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389577/original/file-20210315-17-zxvqdp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389577/original/file-20210315-17-zxvqdp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389577/original/file-20210315-17-zxvqdp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389577/original/file-20210315-17-zxvqdp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In this March 2020 photo, Prince Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, arrive to attend the annual Commonwealth Day service at Westminster Abbey in London.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As we demonstrate throughout our book, the Royal Family has had deep ties to and has propagated the white racial frame, especially via their representation of the British Empire, colonialism and white racial purity.</p>
<p>We also document their individual acts of racism. For example, one month before Meghan married his son, Prince Charles told <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/2018/apr/19/prince-charles-brown-skin-british-people-head-of-commonwealth">Anita Sethi</a>, a British writer of South American Guyanese descent, that she did not look like she was from Manchester, England. </p>
<p>Sethi courageously excoriated Charles for his framing: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“This is exactly why some people, including the prince, urgently need a history lesson about immigration, the British Empire, the Commonwealth and colonialism. Because I do look like I’m from Manchester, actually — a city in which many people of colour have been born and bred.” </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Prime Minister <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-monarchy-meghan-harry-interview-1.5942549">Justin Trudeau</a> has called the Queen “a guardian of many of our country’s traditions.” He has also acknowledged that “many of Canada’s institutions, including Parliament itself, are built on a legacy of systemic racism” but says “the solution is not to dump them altogether but to reform them from within.” </p>
<p>Feelings about the monarchy in the wake of the Oprah interview are arguably more about how we feel about systemic racism, of which all people of colour are painfully aware — and all white people benefit. </p>
<p>While acknowledging “the risk … of disrupting white supremacy,” including the price Prince Harry has paid, the chief consultant for <a href="https://kojoinstitute.com/">The Kojo Institute</a>, which works to make workplaces less oppressive and racist, weighed in.
<a href="https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/why-the-meghan-and-harry-interview-hit-black-and-racialized-viewers-harder-1.5338690">Kike Ojo-Thompson</a> said: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Racism is white people’s problem. It’s a white construct. It was created by white people, the beneficiaries are white people. And therefore white people need to invest in making this change.”</p>
</blockquote><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/157104/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Canadians who support the monarchy will likely not be swayed by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s revelations about racism within ‘The Firm.’ Instead, they’ll become more defensive of the Royal Family.Kimberley Ducey, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of WinnipegJoe R. Feagin, Distinguished Professor of Sociology, Texas A&M UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1569922021-03-12T09:20:42Z2021-03-12T09:20:42ZMeghan Markle, the UK press and the problem of diversity<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389043/original/file-20210311-17-1j7tptc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C54%2C6038%2C3796&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Women of colour are under-represented both on and behind the camera in the UK media.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Image courtesy of ITV Pictures</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56355274">resignation</a> of the executive director of the Society of Editors, Ian Murray, represents a welcome step in the long battle to tackle structural racism in the UK media. Murray stepped down after his assertion that the “<a href="https://www.societyofeditors.org/soe_news/uk-media-not-bigoted-soe-responds-to-sussexes-claims-of-racism/">UK media is not bigoted</a>” caused an outcry in the industry. </p>
<p>His comment came in response to Oprah Winfrey’s interview with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, where they spoke of being subjected to racist treatment by the tabloids. During the interview, headlines were shown highlighting the different way Meghan Markle had been treated by the UK press compared with her sister-in-law, Kate Middleton, the Duchess of Cambridge. Buzzfeed pulled together <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-double-standards-royal">20 headlines</a> to compare the way they are treated. </p>
<p>Journalists across the industry <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/mar/10/society-of-editors-chief-quits-after-row-over-meghan-racism-statement">came together</a> in a show of allyship to counter Murray’s assertion. ITV News anchor Charlene White pulled out of the Society’s National Press Awards, due to be held on March 31. White, the first Black woman to present ITV News at Ten, <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/charlene-white-quits-national-press-awards-society-of-editors_uk_6048cb55c5b65bed87d7874a">wrote</a>: “Perhaps it’s best for you to look elsewhere for a host for your awards this year. Perhaps someone whose views align with yours.”</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1369656690040246283"}"></div></p>
<p>Among many senior journalists to comment on the issue of race and diversity in the media, <a href="https://twitter.com/GuardianComms/status/1369279171143294976">Katherine Viner</a>, the editor-in-chief of The Guardian said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Every institution in the United Kingdom is currently examining its own position on vital issues of race and the treatment of people of colour … the media must do the same. It must be much more representative and more self-aware.“</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Murray’s insistence that, "The UK media has a proud record of calling out racism … If sometimes the questions asked are awkward and embarrassing, then so be it, but the press is most certainly not racist,” bears no relation to my experience as a woman of colour and experienced journalist. But there is a growing body of research to demonstrate how the media fails to represent the voices people from diverse ethnic backgrounds people and women.</p>
<p>In 18 years as a journalist I have seen more and more “dog whistling” on race, ethnicity and immigration issues by the UK press, something that became hugely pronounced during the Brexit campaign. Coverage of Eastern European migration <a href="https://migration.blogs.bristol.ac.uk/2019/03/13/brexit-and-migration-our-new-research-highlights-fact-free-news-coverage/">using language</a> emphasising “floods” and “hordes” of migrants to a country under “siege” was followed by an increase in hate crime. Home Office data showed a <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37640982">41% increase</a> in race and religious hate crimes in 2016 after the Brexit vote. Language has consequences.</p>
<h2>Diversity problem</h2>
<p>According to a <a href="https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/research/files/Journalists%2520in%2520the%2520UK.pdf">Reuters Institute report (2015)</a> UK journalism has a “significant” diversity problem with Black Britons underrepresented by a “factor of more than ten”. A 2017 report from the National Council for the Training of Journalists <a href="https://www.nctj.com/downloadlibrary/DIVERSITY%20JOURNALISM%204WEB.pdf">found that</a> 94% of journalists in the UK are white. When you consider that most news organisations are based in London, where 2011 census data shows the population is 60% white, that suggests a considerable shortfall in people from diverse ethnic backgrounds in those newsrooms.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1369421397760557057"}"></div></p>
<p>A <a href="http://womeninjournalism.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/WIJ-2020-full-report.pdf">Women in Journalism</a> snapshot analysis in September 2020 analysing a week of news coverage on TV, radio and newspaper front pages found that, of 111 voices quoted, just one belonged to a Black person. </p>
<p>More important than the race for numbers is the lack of inclusion. Inclusion means you are included in the workplace team and not made to feel like an “outsider” for being “different”. Being on the outside, with a constant feeling of being undermined and misunderstood, has a cumulative and damaging effect. </p>
<p>My colleague Marverine Duffy, head of undergraduate journalism at Birmingham City University (BCU), has called out what she sees as a “culture of fear and cliquiness” in some newsrooms. This sense of non-inclusion often leads to people of colour prematurely leaving the profession. So an overemphasis on entry-level diversity schemes in media organisations is the wrong approach.</p>
<h2>Who are the gatekeepers?</h2>
<p>My research project for the <a href="https://www.bcu.ac.uk/media/research/sir-lenny-henry-centre-for-media-diversity">Sir Lenny Henry Centre for Media Diversity</a> is looking at the “gatekeepers” of radio news, collating data on the ethnic background of senior managers in the sector to look at how power is distributed in the industry.</p>
<p>It’s the senior managers who determine hiring and firing, support and sponsorship. They decide which stories to cover and how. A story I worked on with a Black colleague about immigration to the UK was supposed to look positively at the improvement of Eastern European children’s language skills as they settled into Britain. One of the senior editors stepped in and changed the focus of the piece to emphasise a “flood” of families overwhelming schools. We were powerless to do anything about it. </p>
<p>The BBC’s <a href="http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/reports/annualreport/2019-20.pdf">Annual Report for 2019-20</a> admitted it was “a long way from our leadership target for BAME representation”, adding that “there is still a lot more … to do to increase the percentages of women and people from ethnic minority backgrounds at the highest levels of the BBC”.</p>
<h2>Media matters</h2>
<p>An <a href="https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0022/159421/diversity-in-radio-2019-report.pdf">Ofcom report</a> from 2019 found there serious diversity issues in the UK’s radio broadcasting industry, with only 7% of employees from BAME backgrounds compared to 12% in the wider population. This matters because the media amplifies and projects a narrative to the whole of the UK. It is a reflection of the nation and if we are putting out a one-sided picture where people of colour are portrayed with (often negative) stereotypes, it breeds division and hostility in the wider community. </p>
<p>In their 2021 book Access All Areas, Marcus Ryder, a visiting professor at BCU’s Centre for Media Diversity, and Sir Lenny Henry argue that representation of “minorities” in the media industry is the wrong way to view the data. They make the point that the group that holds the most power in the UK media still tends to be white, able-bodied, heterosexual men from London and the south-east – who actually only <a href="https://metro.co.uk/2021/01/09/we-are-not-minorities-we-are-the-majority-13869502/">make up 3%</a> of the UK’s population. </p>
<p>Women – who are also <a href="https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/women-and-leadership-news-media-2020-evidence-ten-markets">woefully under-represented</a> in the top echelons of the media – people of colour, the LGBTQ+ community, people who are disabled or live outside London and the south-east make up the vast majority of the UK population. </p>
<p>Their voices must be heard and represented fully in the media for any well-functioning democracy. Anyone who doesn’t recognise this – or worse still, denies there’s even a problem – should not be speaking on our behalf.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/156992/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nina Robinson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A large body of research shows the lack of diversity in the UK news media.Nina Robinson, Lecturer, Sir Lenny Henry Centre for Media Diversity, School of Journalism, Birmingham City UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1568932021-03-11T16:08:11Z2021-03-11T16:08:11ZWhy Meghan and Harry and many others choose to have two wedding ceremonies<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388855/original/file-20210310-20-14780bq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=5%2C2%2C992%2C663&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">First or the second?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/windsor-berkshire-united-kingdom-may-19th-1096947959">Blueskynet/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Prince Harry and Meghan’s <a href="https://www.itv.com/thismorning/articles/heres-how-to-watch-the-meghan-and-harry-interview-with-oprah-in-the-uk">interview with Oprah Winfrey</a> is doubtless historic. Of the many revelations, one that has caused confusion for some was the disclosure that they had entered a private ceremony of marriage in their gardens at Kensington Palace, three days before the public ceremony on May 19 2018. With the Archbishop of Canterbury present, and only Harry and Meghan, they committed themselves to each other in marriage in a ceremony that was private and meaningful to them. </p>
<p>So when did they actually marry, and what is the significance of having two ceremonies? While being royals certainly has implications where weddings law is concerned, dual ceremonies are not unique to them. Many couples in England and Wales do this every year. </p>
<p>Those who live their lives in accordance with a particular faith or belief system, for example, will often have a prescribed manner of marrying that is not recognised by English law. These couples may be compelled to undertake two ceremonies, one that is recognised by their faith/belief, and another that is recognised by the law. This includes, though is not limited to, humanists, Muslims, pagans and Hindus. </p>
<p>Many others, similar to Harry and Meghan but perhaps without the same profile, also want a ceremony that is personally meaningful to them. In such instances, they can even engage one of over 1,000 independent celebrants in the UK who can tailor the service to the needs of the couple.</p>
<h2>Legal limits</h2>
<p>In normal circumstances, Anglican weddings require the publishing of banns (a notice of the proposed wedding) or a licence, two witnesses, and to be held in premises of the Church of England. For royals, however, it is specifically provided that the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/12-13-14/76/contents">Marriage Act 1949</a> does not “affect any law or custom relating to the marriage of members of the Royal Family”. Over time, various laws and customs have existed that bind royals, including the Royal Marriages Act 1772, which sets out, among other things, that royal marriages require consent from the monarch – which is <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/20/contents/enacted">still in force today</a> for the first six members of the royal family in the line of succession.</p>
<p>The royal exemption from current marriage legislation originated in the Clandestine Marriages Act 1753, and effectively means that royal marriages are governed by the law as it stood before that act – known as the Canon Law of the Church of England. On this basis, one could perhaps argue that the secluded private garden ceremony could be considered binding. However, there is an important distinction between an exchange of vows that is binding and a legal marriage. Their legal marriage was the one celebrated publicly by special marriage licence from <a href="https://www.facultyoffice.org.uk/">the Faculty Office</a> at St George’s Chapel in Windsor on May 19 2018. </p>
<p>Nonetheless, legalities aside, it seems that for Meghan and Harry the private ceremony was the one that was personally meaningful to them. For many who undertake dual ceremonies, the personally meaningful element may in fact be the most important part of their wedding process. For example, a Muslim couple would generally consider their religious <em>nikah</em> ceremony as marking their marriage, and this is often celebrated with many friends and family present, and following prescribed religious norms. A follow-up civil wedding, where this occurs, is often more muted and considered procedural for legal recognition purposes. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Muslim nikah Wedding of a couple in the mosque" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388858/original/file-20210310-19-1n32rh6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388858/original/file-20210310-19-1n32rh6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388858/original/file-20210310-19-1n32rh6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388858/original/file-20210310-19-1n32rh6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388858/original/file-20210310-19-1n32rh6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388858/original/file-20210310-19-1n32rh6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388858/original/file-20210310-19-1n32rh6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Muslim nikah wedding ceremony often marks the marriage.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/muslim-nikah-wedding-couple-mosque-658189507">frantic00/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Mixed-faith couples on the other hand may undertake two religious ceremonies, representing the couple’s differing faiths. One of these may be a legally binding marriage, assuming that it is conducted in accordance with the law. Setting aside the special rules that apply to Anglican, Jewish and Quaker weddings, the latter two being exempt from restrictions on the venue, religious weddings must take place in a registered place of worship to be legally recognised. </p>
<p>Crucially, however, not all recognised places of worship, and certainly not all places where people worship, are registered for marriages. </p>
<h2>Changing the law</h2>
<p>If you are reading this and wondering why the system for marrying is so complex, you are certainly not alone. <a href="https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/weddings/">Provisional proposals</a> put forward by the Law Commission of England and Wales pave the way for a simpler way to marry without the need for a dual ceremony. Having consulted on these proposals, it will be making recommendations for reform later this year.</p>
<p>We are <a href="https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/project/wedding-not-marriage-exploring-non-legally-binding-ceremonies">undertaking</a> research on how people marry in England and Wales, with a focus on those who have a dual ceremony or chose to have a single meaningful ceremony that isn’t legally recognised. This research will help understand why people marry in multiple ways, so that any reforms in weddings law can reflect the way people marry today. </p>
<p>For some, legal recognition isn’t what makes a wedding ceremony meaningful. And while many may wrangle over when Meghan and Harry were actually married, the ceremony three days before the one the rest of us saw may be the one that mattered most to them.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/156893/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rajnaara C Akhtar receives funding from Nuffield Foundation. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rebecca Probert is co-investigator on the Nuffield-funded project. She is the specialist consultant to the Law Commission on its Weddings Project.</span></em></p>Why Oprah’s interview with Meghan and Harry had many confused about when they were actually married.Rajnaara C Akhtar, Associate Professor in Law, De Montfort UniversityRebecca Probert, Professor of Law, University of ExeterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1567452021-03-09T08:29:10Z2021-03-09T08:29:10ZIf Princess Diana needed a legacy statement, she’s got it in Harry and Meghan<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388464/original/file-20210309-15-fqnmap.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Harry and Meghan. They left the royal family.</p>
<p>What a shock. Who saw this coming? Harry’s mum Princess Diana definitely would have.</p>
<p>She was, after all, the woman who was ridiculed by a lot of the mainstream media for being too emotional. Her trembling lower juxtaposed against Charles’s stiff upper lip.</p>
<p>Well guess what, if Diana needed a legacy statement her son Harry has made it by marrying a very smart and powerful woman who will not sit in the corner and be told to behave.</p>
<p>Diana famously offered <a href="https://www.elle.com/culture/movies-tv/a34732735/princess-diana-aids-activism-the-crown/">her ungloved hand to an AIDS patient</a>. It was significant because part of the protocol of royalty is that ordinary people are not meant to touch the royals. Anyone remember the “Lizard of Oz” scandal when Paul Keating <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/gallery/2017/jul/12/no-hands-maam-australian-prime-ministers-meet-the-queen-in-pictures">put his hand on the Queen’s back</a>?</p>
<p>In stark contrast to Queen Elizabeth, Diana frequently kissed and hugged people. Unlike her husband she made a point of showing physical affection to her children in public.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388465/original/file-20210309-15-10mzy2c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388465/original/file-20210309-15-10mzy2c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=493&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388465/original/file-20210309-15-10mzy2c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=493&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388465/original/file-20210309-15-10mzy2c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=493&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388465/original/file-20210309-15-10mzy2c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=619&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388465/original/file-20210309-15-10mzy2c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=619&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388465/original/file-20210309-15-10mzy2c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=619&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Princess Diana frequently hugged and touched people, and was referred to as the ‘Queen of hearts’.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/AP/Alejandro Pagni</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Meghan and Harry story and the current debates about whether they should have done an interview with Oprah Winfrey sent me back to when I was writing my PhD thesis on why tabloid media matters. Later, I published it <a href="https://www.readings.com.au/products/3452375/gotcha-life-in-a-tabloid-world#">as a book</a> titled Gotcha: Life in a Tabloid World.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-royal-family-cant-keep-ignoring-its-colonialist-past-and-racist-present-156749">The royal family can't keep ignoring its colonialist past and racist present</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>I wrote about Oprah and why talk shows like hers matter. It’s because they let us hear the voices of people we don’t hear in the mainstream media. We hear more from black people, people from disadvantaged backgrounds and more from women. And sometimes those people get emotional. What a shock.</p>
<p>Emotion and empathy are very clearly lacking in our public debates these days. And thank goodness interviewers like Oprah bring that to the table.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388467/original/file-20210309-17-1yw55jo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388467/original/file-20210309-17-1yw55jo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388467/original/file-20210309-17-1yw55jo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388467/original/file-20210309-17-1yw55jo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388467/original/file-20210309-17-1yw55jo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=621&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388467/original/file-20210309-17-1yw55jo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=621&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388467/original/file-20210309-17-1yw55jo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=621&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Oprah Winfrey brought her trademark empathy and emotion to her interview with the royal couple.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/AP/STRF/STAR MAX/IPx</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The symbolic aspect of Diana’s persona aligned her with religious figures like Mother Theresa. And that’s part of why she was seen in the mainstream media as a bit of a spiritual nut-job.</p>
<p>But the perception that many others had was that she channelled empathy and humanity through the way she connected with people. And that’s why she was and is still called “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyIUWbvx7uw">the Queen of hearts</a>”.</p>
<p>Back to Harry and his wife.</p>
<p>Meghan has clearly been targeted by the tabloid media, in an undeniably racist way, and she and her husband made a sensible decision to get out. But their dilemma raises a far bigger issue for all of us.</p>
<p>We are living through a time where the limits of free speech – the boundaries of what it is acceptable to say - are unclear. And we equally live in a time where anyone can post anything on social media and effectively become a publisher.</p>
<p>Twenty years ago, I was optimistic about the tabloid media and talks shows balancing out the elitism of the so-called “fourth estate”. Now I’m not so sure. </p>
<p>When I bother to check my Twitter feed or my email account I, like many of us, am increasingly alarmed by the trolling that goes on. I assume Meghan has someone to deal with that for her. The rest of us are only just working out how to manage it. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/meghan-and-harrys-oprah-interview-why-british-media-coverage-could-backfire-156424">Meghan and Harry’s Oprah interview: why British media coverage could backfire</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/156745/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Catharine Lumby does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Oprah Winfrey brought emotion and empathy to her bombshell interview with the couple – two qualities sorely missing in public debate these days.Catharine Lumby, Professor of Media, Department of Media, Macquarie UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1567442021-03-09T07:23:51Z2021-03-09T07:23:51ZThe Oprah interview is a royal PR nightmare, but republicans shouldn’t get their hopes up just yet<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388401/original/file-20210309-17-1ciexzy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=3%2C3%2C2574%2C1523&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Joe Pugliese/AP/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In 1992, Texan millionaire John Bryan was caught <a href="https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/toe-sucking-photo-drove-sarah-22405395">sucking the toes</a> of Sarah Ferguson, the Duchess of York. It made front page news and saw Australians’ support for a republic surge from <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291790423_Loyal_to_the_Crown_shifting_public_opinion_towards_the_monarchy_in_Australia">36% in 1991 to 57% in 1992</a>. </p>
<p>Despite this, and the unedifying spectacle of Charles and Diana’s divorce (and a slew of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/may/24/royal-family-bounced-back-annus-horribilis">other royal scandals</a>), in the <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2012-2013/AustralianRepublic">1999 republic referendum</a>, Australia still clung to the monarchy. </p>
<p>This should serve as a timely reminder as the uproar grows over the public relations disaster of <a href="https://theconversation.com/meghan-and-harrys-oprah-interview-why-royal-confessionals-threaten-the-monarchy-156601">Meghan and Harry’s interview</a> with Oprah Winfrey — and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/mar/09/harry-and-meghan-interview-stirs-debate-about-australia-becoming-a-republic">renewed calls</a> for an Australian republic. </p>
<p>If Fergie couldn’t bring down Australia’s monarchy, it’s unlikely Oprah can.</p>
<h2>The interview</h2>
<p>The interview, which is making headlines around the world, is arguably far more nuanced situation than the royal scandals of the 1990s. </p>
<p>The claims the palace is <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/08/palace-under-pressure-to-respond-to-harry-and-meghan-racism-claims">racist</a>, that toxic tabloid culture invaded their lives, that Meghan’s <a href="https://www.vox.com/22320404/meghan-markle-suicide-oprah-cbs-interview">mental health </a> was severely neglected and the couple were not supported by their family are horrible and harrowing. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_4kWaiDuTYU?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>But they must also be seen in the context of an <a href="https://theconversation.com/finding-freedom-the-new-harry-and-meghan-book-is-the-latest-risky-move-in-a-royal-pr-war-144090">escalating war</a> between Buckingham Palace and the Sussexes. Also at play is the fact Meghan and Harry are desperately trying to make money - and <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/culture/celebrity/will-harry-and-meghan-s-interview-help-or-hinder-their-brand-20210305-p57835.html">build a brand</a> - to support their new life in California. </p>
<p>From a political communications perspective, the TV interview also does not have the visual imagery needed to shock otherwise disinterested voters (again, think back to the toe episode). </p>
<h2>Most Australians want to keep the queen</h2>
<p>It is also fair to say the republic is not a top priority for Australians. </p>
<p>For the first time since the 1990s, in 2019, the Australian Election Study showed <a href="https://australianelectionstudy.org/wp-content/uploads/Trends-in-Australian-Political-Opinion-1987-2019.pdf">a majority</a> of Australians (51%) wished to retain the queen as our head of state.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/meghan-and-harrys-oprah-interview-why-royal-confessionals-threaten-the-monarchy-156601">Meghan and Harry’s Oprah interview: why 'royal confessionals' threaten the monarchy</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Public opinion has also held in the wake of last year’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-big-reveal-jenny-hocking-on-what-the-palace-letters-may-tell-us-finally-about-the-dismissal-142473">palace Letters</a> revelations and the Prince Andrew/ Jeffrey Epstein <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/dec/14/prince-andrew-refuses-to-deny-he-stayed-in-jeffrey-epstein-mansion">scandal</a>. In January 2021, an <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/no-sense-of-momentum-poll-finds-drop-in-support-for-australia-becoming-a-republic-20210125-p56wpe.html">Ipsos poll</a> indicated only 34% of Australians wanted a republic. </p>
<p>This presents republican activists with a much harder task than at any point in the past three decades. The need to make a huge dent in public opinion to achieve the double majority support required nationally and in at least four states for the dissolution of the Australian monarchy.</p>
<p>Interestingly, younger people — who tend to be more politically progressive — are also strong supporters of the monarchy. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="The Queen walking past Commonwealth flags at Windsor Castle." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388460/original/file-20210309-17-1lv5s5j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388460/original/file-20210309-17-1lv5s5j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388460/original/file-20210309-17-1lv5s5j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388460/original/file-20210309-17-1lv5s5j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=476&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388460/original/file-20210309-17-1lv5s5j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=598&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388460/original/file-20210309-17-1lv5s5j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=598&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388460/original/file-20210309-17-1lv5s5j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=598&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Most Australians want to hang on to the monarchy.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Steve Parsons/ AP/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For every birth year cohort born after 1975 (with no memory of the Whitlam Dismissal and less memory of the ‘90s), at least 51% want Australia to keep its constitutional links with the House of Windsor. Older Australians (those over the age of 70) also want to keep the queen. </p>
<p>Support for a republic is strongest among baby boomers, with about <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330093922_Howard's_queens_in_Whitlam's_republic_explaining_enduring_support_for_the_monarchy_in_Australia_-_Chapter_9_-_Australian_Social_Attitudes_IV">65% wanting</a> a revised constitution.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-royal-family-cant-keep-ignoring-its-colonialist-past-and-racist-present-156749">The royal family can't keep ignoring its colonialist past and racist present</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Explaining the poll results from earlier this year, Ipsos director Jessica Elgood said there was “<a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/no-sense-of-momentum-poll-finds-drop-in-support-for-australia-becoming-a-republic-20210125-p56wpe.html">no sense of momentum</a>” towards a republic, while monarchists pointed to the popularity of the royals among younger people. </p>
<p>It’s also worth noting that in the two decades after the referendum, there have been relatively few scandals from the royals (until recently). </p>
<h2>Republicans should not be celebrating</h2>
<p>So, republicans should not see the Oprah interview as a major boost to their cause — there are hard yards to be done.</p>
<p>Beyond the odd account on Twitter, there is no significant campaign in place to take advantage of the political opportunity this scandal presents.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/prince-harrys-decision-to-step-back-from-the-monarchy-is-a-gift-to-republicans-129624">Prince Harry’s decision to ‘step back’ from the monarchy is a gift to republicans</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The Australian Republic Movement have a <a href="https://republic.org.au">website</a>, a well-known chair in Peter FitzSimons and many eminent supporters, including historical biographer Jenny Hocking and mental health expert Patrick McGorry. They also highlight a <a href="https://republic.org.au/media/2020/12/22/campaign-for-an-australian-republic-stronger-than-ever">19% increase </a>in membership in 2020. </p>
<p>But it is hard to argue the group has a high profile in the broader community. </p>
<p>Compared to same-sex marriage, for example, there is not the campaign infrastructure or political communication tools. What cut-through is a republic push going to have amid the ongoing sexual assault claims emerging from Canberra? Or outrage over standards in aged care? Or the push for Australians to get vaccinated?</p>
<h2>Other constitutional priorities</h2>
<p>There are also arguably far more important constitutional issues that require our nation’s attention. </p>
<p>Constitutional change is a hard and difficult project in Australia at the best of times - and at the moment, the republic sits down the list of priorities. It would be a hard case to argue the republic should be dealt with before <a href="https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/about-constitutional-recognition">First Nations’ Recognition</a> or <a href="https://theconversation.com/budget-explainer-the-federal-state-battle-for-funding-75383">skewed tax arrangements</a> between the federal and state governments, as we emerge from the COVID economic catastrophe.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1369078950505312258"}"></div></p>
<p>A further complicating factor is we still don’t have a clear idea about what our republic would look like. </p>
<p>In 1999, <a href="https://australianelectionstudy.org/wp-content/uploads/McAllister-Elections-Without-Cues-AusJPS-2001.pdf">55% of Australians</a> wanted a republic with a president elected by the people. Only 21% preferred the model offered in the referendum of a president appointed by parliament. And we are still no closer to arriving at a <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-australia-ready-for-another-republic-referendum-these-consensus-models-could-work-142646">preferred model</a>. </p>
<p>The interview is a terrible look for the monarchy — and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/08/palace-under-pressure-to-respond-to-harry-and-meghan-racism-claims">uncomfortable questions</a> must follow. But it is hard to see it having an impact on the republican cause in Australia.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/156744/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Luke Mansillo does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Republic backers need to make a huge dent in public opinion to get the progress they want. People should remember even Fergie’s ‘toe sucking’ incident didn’t bring down the monarchy in the 1990s.Luke Mansillo, PhD Candidate in Government & International Relations, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1567492021-03-09T06:16:35Z2021-03-09T06:16:35ZThe royal family can’t keep ignoring its colonialist past and racist present<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388407/original/file-20210309-21-mwfm4w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Duke and Duchess of Sussex pose with their newborn son in May 2019. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Domic Lipinski/PA</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The most explosive element of the Sussexes’ highly anticipated interview with Oprah Winfrey was the claim that someone within the royal household had <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/explosive-harry-and-meghan-interview-reveals-royals-worried-about-archie-s-skin-tone-20210308-p578ok.html">“concerns”</a> over how dark-skinned the couple’s son Archie might be. </p>
<p>While Winfrey later clarified neither the Queen nor the Duke of Edinburgh were behind the remark, Meghan also suggested their son was <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/08/why-meghan-harry-son-archie-denied-title-prince-mixed-race">denied the title of prince</a> because of his mixed race. </p>
<p>The interview points to a larger issue of racism in the British monarchy, both contemporary and historical.</p>
<p>When the couple began dating, some hoped it would usher in a period of royal renewal. Meghan, who has an African-American mother and a white father, was presented as a symbol of the modern, inclusive monarchy. These hopes were gradually dashed with consistently negative media coverage, including <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-double-standards-royal">unfavourable comparisons</a> with Meghan’s sister-in-law, Kate Middleton, the Duchess of Cambridge. </p>
<p>Meghan revealed to Winfrey that the pressure to perform official duties in the face of mounting criticism led to depression and suicidal thoughts. The couple lamented the lack of support they received from the royal family. </p>
<p>It is a tragic story at an individual level but it also points to a history of structural racism within the monarchy. Harry noted that the press attacks on his wife had <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/explosive-harry-and-meghan-interview-reveals-royals-worried-about-archie-s-skin-tone-20210308-p578ok.html">“colonial undertones”</a>, which the royal family refused to address. These are part of a longer history of colonialism and racism in which the Windsors are entangled. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/meghan-and-harrys-oprah-interview-why-british-media-coverage-could-backfire-156424">Meghan and Harry’s Oprah interview: why British media coverage could backfire</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>The slave trade</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388408/original/file-20210309-18-184xxyl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388408/original/file-20210309-18-184xxyl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388408/original/file-20210309-18-184xxyl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=780&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388408/original/file-20210309-18-184xxyl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=780&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388408/original/file-20210309-18-184xxyl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=780&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388408/original/file-20210309-18-184xxyl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=980&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388408/original/file-20210309-18-184xxyl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=980&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388408/original/file-20210309-18-184xxyl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=980&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Elizabeth I: The Pelican Portrait by Nicholas Hilliard, circa 1575.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Wikimedia Commons</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Queen’s distant predecessor, Elizabeth I, was integral to establishing the British slave trade. One of the founders of the trade in the 16th century, Sir John Hawkins, impressed Elizabeth by capturing 300 Africans. His biographer Harry Kelsey calls him <a href="https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300096637/sir-john-hawkins">“Queen Elizabeth’s Slave Trader”</a> and notes that she contributed her ship, <em>Jesus of Lubeck</em> to his next voyage in 1564. </p>
<p>In 2018, Prince Charles denounced Britain’s role in the slave trade as an <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/05/prince-charles-says-britains-part-in-transatlantic-slave-trade-was-atrocity">“atrocity”</a> but there have been calls for the Queen also to apologise on behalf of the monarchy. </p>
<p>Republican campaigner Graham Smith has led the charge <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/queen-elizabeth-ii-should-acknowledge-uk-role-slavery-campaigners-say-1514638">noting that</a> the current royals “are sitting on a hugely significant amount which was acquired from slavery and empire”.</p>
<h2>A colonial mindset</h2>
<p>The British empire contracted after the World Wars and eventually dissolved in 1960s. Nevertheless, a colonial mindset has persisted. This has been regularly demonstrated by the casual racism of Prince Philip. Visiting Australia in 2002, he asked an Aboriginal Australian if they were <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/mar/02/monarchy.ewenmacaskill">“still throwing spears”</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388406/original/file-20210309-21-edqvln.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388406/original/file-20210309-21-edqvln.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388406/original/file-20210309-21-edqvln.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=810&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388406/original/file-20210309-21-edqvln.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=810&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388406/original/file-20210309-21-edqvln.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=810&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388406/original/file-20210309-21-edqvln.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1018&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388406/original/file-20210309-21-edqvln.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1018&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388406/original/file-20210309-21-edqvln.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1018&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip watch as Warren Clements of the Tjapakai Aboriginal Dance Group makes fire by rubbing sticks in Cairns in March 2002.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Brian Cassey/AP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In 1999, he mused that an old-fashioned fuse box must have been <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-39806145">“put in by an Indian”</a>. In 1986, he warned British students in China that they would become <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-39806145">“slitty-eyed”</a> if they stayed too long. Australia, China, and India, are just three of dozens of countries touched by British colonisation. </p>
<p>While the Prince’s comments — <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-39806145">and many others</a> — are often dismissed as “gaffes” or poor jokes, they tie into a culture war, suggesting colonialism was ultimately a net good and Britain was spreading civilisation throughout the world. </p>
<p>Journalist Peter Tatchell has argued that the institution of monarchy is itself inherently racist as there have only been, and likely will only ever be, white monarchs. He <a href="https://www.insider.com/british-royal-family-racist-history-black-lives-matter-2020-8">notes</a>, </p>
<blockquote>
<p>A non-white person is […] excluded from holding the title of head of state, at least for the foreseeable future. This is institutional racism. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>While this could change, of course, the treatment of Meghan and the alleged concerns over her son’s skin colour suggest the privileging of whiteness is deeply ingrained.</p>
<p>Being seventh in line to the throne, there was never a realistic chance Archie would become king. The notion that his mere proximity to the throne has sparked concerns, and the failure to defend Meghan from racist attacks, again points to a structural issue. </p>
<p>The marriage of Harry and Meghan in 2018 by charismatic African-American Bishop Michael Curry, serenaded by a gospel choir, was a public relations coup for the royals. The Sussexes’ exit from royal life after such a short period, and the reasons why, is highly damaging. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/prince-harrys-decision-to-step-back-from-the-monarchy-is-a-gift-to-republicans-129624">Prince Harry’s decision to ‘step back’ from the monarchy is a gift to republicans</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Royal silence</h2>
<p>The monarchy has remained largely silent on the history of racism in Britain and how the royal family has benefited from racism and colonialism. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388410/original/file-20210309-19-10w62kq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388410/original/file-20210309-19-10w62kq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388410/original/file-20210309-19-10w62kq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388410/original/file-20210309-19-10w62kq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388410/original/file-20210309-19-10w62kq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388410/original/file-20210309-19-10w62kq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388410/original/file-20210309-19-10w62kq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/388410/original/file-20210309-19-10w62kq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Sets of shackles used in the transportation of slaves, on display at the International Slavery Museum in Liverpool, England.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dave Thompson/AP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>After the death of George Floyd sparked the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/07/03/us/george-floyd-protests-crowd-size.html">Black Lives Matter</a> movement, thousands across Britain were quick to show their support and solidarity. So strongly did the movement resonate, in 2020 the English Premier League had the words Black Lives Matter <a href="https://www.espn.com.au/football/english-premier-league/story/4110538/premier-league-approves-black-lives-matter-on-club-shirtstaking-a-knee-in-games">printed on players’ shirts</a>, opening matches with players taking a symbolic knee. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/statues-are-just-the-start-the-uk-is-peppered-with-slavery-heritage-140308">Statues are just the start – the UK is peppered with slavery heritage</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The royal family said nothing. By protocol, the monarchy does not comment on political issues but its role is to offer moral leadership. Without explicitly endorsing Black Lives Matter, the Windsors could have contributed to the zeitgeist by offering statements condemning all forms of racism and visibly championing anti-racism charities. </p>
<p>As a society, Britain is having a difficult national conversation about its imperial past. Statues of slave owners are being <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-52954994">torn down</a> and attempts to decolonise the curriculum are gathering pace. </p>
<p>If the royal family is not able to make similar attempts to confront the racism in its past and present, it risks falling ever further out of touch with the people it is supposed to represent. </p>
<p><em>The original version of this article wrongly called Elizabeth I a “distant ancestor” of Elizabeth II. She was a predecessor as Queen but from a different family line.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/156749/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Benjamin T. Jones is a member of the Australian Republic Movement.</span></em></p>Concerns raised by the Sussexes about racism within the royal family point to a larger issue. The Windsors are entangled in a history of colonialism and racism.Benjamin T. Jones, Senior Lecturer in History, CQUniversity AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1566012021-03-08T12:36:36Z2021-03-08T12:36:36ZMeghan and Harry’s Oprah interview: why ‘royal confessionals’ threaten the monarchy<p>The Sussexes’ interview with Oprah Winfrey is shaping up to be the most published critique of the British monarchy in years. In it, Meghan confessed her suicidal feelings while pregnant as well as claims that someone in the royal family questioned how dark Archie – her son with Prince Harry – would be. In much of the <a href="https://twitter.com/GMB/status/1368835040445104130">commentary</a>, the interview has been framed as an attack on the royal family. But royalist demands that Meghan and Harry should “just stay quiet” speak to longer histories of the politics of the “royal confessional”, and how people who speak out are maligned to protect the institution. </p>
<p>Royal confessionals have a long history. Marion Crawford, who wrote a book in 1950 about her time as nanny to the Queen and her sister Margaret, was <a href="https://time.com/5411825/british-royal-household-memoirs/">allegedly ostracised</a> for selling her story without permission. Wallis Simpson, the American socialite for whom Edward VIII abdicated the throne in 1936, wrote a memoir <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8314372-the-heart-has-its-reasons">The Heart Has its Reasons</a>. In it, she sarcastically recalled the Queen Mother’s “justly famous charm” as a thinly-veiled critique.</p>
<p>Princess Diana’s <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/diana/panorama.html">BBC One Panorama interview in 1995</a> is perhaps the most iconic royal confessional. Diana told interviewer Martin Bashir about royal adultery, palace plots against her, and her deteriorating mental and physical health. Her infamous quote, “well, there were three of us in this marriage, so it was a bit crowded,” referring to Prince Charles’s affair with Camilla Parker Bowles, is still remembered almost 26 years later. Sir Richard Eyre, a former director of the National Theatre, <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/princess-diana-panorama-interview-martin-bashir-prince-charles-b1207193.html">claimed</a> that the Queen called Diana’s decision to tell-all “frightful”.</p>
<h2>Unwelcome confessions</h2>
<p>Common across all these examples is that it is women who use the royal confessional to reveal their experiences.</p>
<p>The “confessional” is often used in celebrity cultures to manufacture intimacies with audiences. Celebrities disclose something personal and reveal their “authentic” selves. However, as sociology and media scholars Helen Wood, Beverley Skeggs and Nancy Thumin <a href="https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/sad-affect-judgement-emotional-labour-reality-television-viewing-helen-wood-beverley-skeggs-nancy-thumim/e/10.4324/9780203889633-16">note</a>, elite, white, male celebrity confessions tend to be treated with gravitas. But <a href="https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9783030446208">women’s confessionals</a> – particularly women of colour or those associated with “low culture professions” (such as celebrities) – are all too often treated as inappropriate, oversharing and narcissistic. </p>
<p>All these confessionals are described in public and social commentary as attacks on the royal family. They were – and are – considered as erroneously and immorally exposing the inner workings of the monarchy. Commentators such as Piers Morgan have branded the interview a <a href="https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/entertainment/celebrity/piers-morgan-slams-meghan-harrys-23610237">disgrace</a>, asking how they could be so heartless as to call the Queen and Prince Philip liars while Philip is currently ill in hospital?</p>
<h2>Protecting power</h2>
<p>Stories that describe royal confessionals as immoral are similarly attempting to protect the monarchy, rather than recognising the importance of holding a powerful institution to account. In my <a href="https://manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk/9781526158758/">forthcoming book</a>, I argue that the British monarchy relies upon a careful balance of visibility and invisibility to reproduce its power. This is an ancient institution operating at the heart of a supposed democracy - not drawing attention to these contradictions is central to its survival. The royal family can be visible in spectacular (state ceremonies, for example) or familial (royal weddings, royal babies) forms. But the inner workings of the institution must remain secret. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/OTJgi78AguE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Like Meghan, I use the phrase “The Firm”, but I use it to describe the monarchy as a corporation, invested in reproducing its wealth and power. But this is a corporation whose operations must remain top secret. Any exposure of its behind-the-scenes activities – such as recent revelations in <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent">The Guardian</a> on the misuses of the “Queen’s consent” to influence laws that affect her personal interests – risk destabilising the monarchy. </p>
<p>One moment when too much visibility was cast on the monarchy was the 1969 fly-on-the-wall documentary <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-55853625">Royal Family</a>, which followed the royals for a year. This has been (in)famously redacted by Buckingham Palace. I argue this is because it revealed too much about monarchy behind the scenes and threatened to rupture the precious visibility and invisibility balance. As constitutional scholar <a href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Bagehot_The_English_Constitution/A0-zcw0XYbYC?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover">Walter Bagehot</a> wrote in the 1800s: “We must not let in daylight upon magic”. </p>
<p>Like their other confessors before them, Meghan and Harry’s claims about living inside “The Firm” continue to be positioned as disrespectful, blasphemous and immoral attacks on the Queen and her family. But perhaps what we should be asking is why do so many people, and the British media, seem to have a problem with holding one of our most powerful state institutions to account?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/156601/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Laura Clancy has received funding from the ESRC and the AHRC. </span></em></p>Royal confessions disrupt the careful balance between transparency and secrecy on which the monarchy is based.Laura Clancy, Lecturer in Media, Lancaster UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1564242021-03-08T10:16:52Z2021-03-08T10:16:52ZMeghan and Harry’s Oprah interview: why British media coverage could backfire<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/388087/original/file-20210305-15-44ug0a.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C1920%2C1080&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Sussexes' interview with Oprah aired on CBS on Sunday</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7LJrh5UTr4">CBS/YouTube</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>“I would sit up at night, and I was just, like, I don’t understand how all of this is being churned out … And I just didn’t want to be alive anymore.” This stark admission from the Duchess of Sussex during her and her husband’s much-anticipated interview with Oprah Winfrey captures how press treatment of Meghan drove the couple’s decision to step back from royal duties.</p>
<p>In the run-up to that interview, with uncanny timing, damaging stories about the couple have emerged from the palace, which seems distinctly rattled by the couple’s determination to speak out. Predictably, these allegations have been seized upon by a British press that thrives on reporting – and fomenting – royal discord. </p>
<p>The previous week, the Times broke a <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/royal-aides-reveal-meghan-bullying-claim-before-oprah-interview-7sxfvd2c3">story</a> that a bullying complaint had being lodged against Meghan while she was living at Kensington Palace. The complaint had been made over two years earlier, but royal aides had only just approached the Times in order to “tell their side”. </p>
<p>These timely leaks included the suggestion that Meghan was given earrings by the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman shortly after the Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi had been murdered, a wardrobe story deemed sufficiently heinous to warrant a dedicated <a href="https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1366887706085773314?s=20">tweet</a>. Clearly, the Oprah interview is worrying minds.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/aaVb3YeNQA0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Where the press goes, some TV programmes follow. Bethan Sayed, a member of the Welsh parliament tweeted a picture of how ITV’s Good Morning Britain (hosted by Susanna Reid and Meghan-critic Piers Morgan) chose to cover the story, with a revealing <a href="https://twitter.com/bethanjenkins/status/1367018346638696448?s=20">picture</a> of four ageing white men on a Zoom call. Her accompanying text read: “5 men character assassinating a woman. No wonder Meghan left the UK.” </p>
<p>As one journalist <a href="https://twitter.com/Otto_English/status/1367019345956786177?s=20">put it</a>: “We’re getting to the point where if Meghan Markle were to take a posy offered to her, the press would report it as: ‘Evil Duchess steals flowers from child.’”</p>
<h2>Years of toxic tabloid coverage</h2>
<p>This kind of visceral hostility is not new. When Meghan launched her legal action against the Daily Mail in October 2019 for publishing a private letter that she wrote to her father, Prince Harry referred to Meghan as “one of the latest victims of a British tabloid press that wages campaigns against individuals with no thought to the consequences – a ruthless campaign that has escalated over the past year.” He spoke for many victims of Britain’s toxic tabloid culture when he <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/oct/02/put-simply-its-bullying-prince-harrys-full-statement-on-the-media">continued</a>: “Put simply, it is bullying, which scares and silences people.”</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1365337095863205892"}"></div></p>
<p>The tabloid media’s ever-expanding charge sheet of distortion and vindictiveness towards the Sussexes is extensive, and sometimes beyond parody: one particularly absurd Mail headline from 2019 <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6621047/How-Meghans-favourite-avocado-snack-fuelling-human-rights-abuses-drought-murder.html">read</a>: “How Meghan’s favourite avocado snack…. is fuelling human rights abuses, drought and murder.” </p>
<p>The sheer volume of hostility was captured by a BuzzFeed <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-double-standards-royal">article</a> which juxtaposed headlines about Meghan and Kate Middleton to demonstrate how Meghan was routinely vilified for behaviour that the same papers applauded in Kate. This treatment isn’t always confined to the tabloids, however. The British broadsheet The Telegraph, for example, was equally happy to <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/11/23/meghan-cookbook-mosque-linked-19-terror-suspects-including-jihadi/">headline</a> a highly tenuous link with terrorist groups in 2018.</p>
<p>Underlying some of this reporting has been implicit and unpleasant racism that refers coyly to Meghan’s “<a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3909362/RACHEL-JOHNSON-Sorry-Harry-beautiful-bolter-failed-Mum-Test.html">exotic DNA</a>” or labels her as “<a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3896180/Prince-Harry-s-girlfriend-actress-Meghan-Markles.html">straight outta Compton</a>”, carrying the unambiguous message that she is “not one of us”. In her Oprah Winfrey interview, Meghan all but confirms that the racism she experienced extended into the royal family itself. </p>
<h2>The reasons behind the media’s malice</h2>
<p>There are at least three reasons to explain this apparently visceral hostility to the Sussexes.</p>
<p>First, there are the legal cases which both royals have brought against the press and comprehensively won. Last month, Harry <a href="https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-prince-harry-wins-substantial-23420878">won</a> an apology and “substantial damages” from the Mail on Sunday and Mail Online for publishing false allegations that he had turned his back on the Royal Marines. </p>
<p>Ten days later, Meghan <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56028583">won</a> her privacy case against the same publisher in a summary judgement in which the judge called publication of her father’s letter “manifestly excessive and hence unlawful”. The British press does not like being bested in court, and the Mail in particular will be looking to exact revenge.</p>
<p>Second, there is the commercial imperative: sales and clickbait. The royal family sells newspapers and attracts online readers. In the pre-electronic era, every publisher knew that a front page picture of Princess Diana would be guaranteed to shift copies from newsagents, street sellers and garage forecourts. Today, casual readers are drawn to headlines on social and online media, which are fed by a worldwide fascination with the Royal soap opera. </p>
<p>Every soap opera needs its heroes and antagonists. Britain’s tabloid press has demonstrated over the years how adept it is at creating fairy tale princesses and pantomime villains, regardless of the impact on the individuals themselves. Stories are embellished, distorted or simply manufactured to generate more clickbait and thus more revenue. </p>
<p>Third, there is a longstanding culture in British print journalism that, as far as celebrities are concerned, their business is our business. At one level, this is an entirely appropriate journalistic imperative to hold power to account (think, for example, of the Prince Andrew <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtBS8COhhhM">interview</a> on the BBC’s Newsnight). </p>
<p>Too often, however, the norm of journalistic scrutiny is exploited as a fig-leaf to justify monumental invasions of privacy and downright lies that cannot be justified by any arguments around accountability. A healthy journalistic culture knows the difference between exposing incompetence, corruption or dishonesty in high places and the vindictive hounding of individuals designed simply to maximise corporate profit.</p>
<p>It is just possible that the press in this case has overreached itself. Its vilification campaign is transparent and is being called out on social media in the <a href="https://twitter.com/munyachawawa/status/1367182324291493894?s=20">UK</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/ChrissieEvert/status/1367300705405591557?s=20">US</a>. As legacy newspaper circulations continue to fall, such grievance-driven journalism looks increasingly like an ageing relic from a bygone age. Even before the current pre-Oprah drama, Guardian columnist Marina Hyde <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/16/harry-meghan-media-critics-worse">wrote</a> that “Much UK media reaction to Meghan and Harry reeks of this gathering powerlessness.” </p>
<p>No doubt more vicious headlines will greet the Sussexes after Sunday’s interview. But we may just be witnessing the decline of a toxic tabloid culture that treats individuals – ordinary people as well as celebrities – as sensationalist copy fodder. If so, it will be good news for British journalism.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/156424/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Steven Barnett does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Could the press’s increasingly hostile campaign against the Sussexes lead to the fall of our toxic tabloid culture?Steven Barnett, Professor of Communications, University of WestminsterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1511962020-12-20T13:29:42Z2020-12-20T13:29:42ZThe painful collision between work life and pregnancy loss<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/375538/original/file-20201216-17-1evrokh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C35%2C2948%2C2003&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">In this November 2019 photo, Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, stands beside her husband at a Remembrance Day ceremony. She's among high-profile women to go public with her miscarriage. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Matt Dunham)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>“It is with broken hearts that we share the news that our baby … was born sleeping. I will not be back into the office for another two weeks, as I need that time to heal, both physically and psychologically. Thank you for your patience and understanding during this incredibly difficult time.”</em> — An email excerpt written by a senior consulting group manager to inform clients that her first daughter was stillborn. </p>
<p>With recent celebrity disclosures of pregnancy loss <a href="https://apnews.com/article/chrissy-teigen-miscarriage-essay-3919866974b8082390b36906f2a13bfe">making headlines</a>, including Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex’s opinion piece in the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/25/opinion/meghan-markle-miscarriage.html"><em>New York Times</em></a> announcing her miscarriage, more women are taking to social media to share similar stories of pain and disclosure. </p>
<p>Their shared experiences underscore the reality that <a href="https://www.ontarioprenataleducation.ca/infant-loss/">one in four pregnancies ends in loss</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Chrissy Teigen sits in a hospital bed with her head bowed." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/375470/original/file-20201216-15-1lmclsm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/375470/original/file-20201216-15-1lmclsm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375470/original/file-20201216-15-1lmclsm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375470/original/file-20201216-15-1lmclsm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=413&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375470/original/file-20201216-15-1lmclsm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=519&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375470/original/file-20201216-15-1lmclsm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=519&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375470/original/file-20201216-15-1lmclsm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=519&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Model Chrissy Teigen’s Instagram post announcing her miscarriage.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Miscarriage and stillbirth (<a href="https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/82-224-x/2003000/4153772-eng.htm">pregnancy loss before and after 20 weeks, respectively</a>) are remarkably common and can have pervasive impacts on work and life. Employees who have lost a pregnancy are more likely to <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/gwao.12181">quit their jobs, change careers and suffer from impaired work performance for months to years</a>. For these employees and their organizations, pregnancy loss is not just a personal issue, but also a workplace issue.</p>
<h2>Pregnancy loss and work</h2>
<p>As a <a href="https://journals.lww.com/jpnnjournal/Abstract/2006/07000/Perinatal_Loss__A_Family_Perspective.9.aspx">highly stigmatized health issue</a>, pregnancy loss is rarely discussed or supported at work. Employees who lose a pregnancy may return to work <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/gwao.12181">still dealing with physical symptoms and psychological distress</a> often augmented by social stigma, loneliness and isolation. </p>
<p>Furthermore, showing distress at work — like breaking down or crying — is often considered unprofessional. That means employees are likely to hide their pain, which can <a href="https://www.annfammed.org/content/15/4/375.short">lead to burnout</a> and interfere with the grief process. </p>
<p>As a participant in <a href="https://www.siop.org/Portals/84/Conference/2020/Program/SatAm.pdf">one of our studies</a> put it: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Nobody at work wants to address it, nobody wants to talk about grief or what the aftermath of that looks like. Everybody’s nervous about saying the wrong thing, and nervous about somebody crying if you bring it up.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Due to experiences like this one, employees may be less likely to disclose pregnancy loss, leading them to suffer in silence. Some employees may return to work while still physically recovering and may wonder if they could be to blame for the loss, leading to feelings of <a href="https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1348/1476083042555442">shame, guilt</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0018726703056002889">reduced confidence</a>. </p>
<p>Women may even actively miscarry while at work without disclosing their situation. Employees may choose not to disclose or discuss loss at work due to fear of <a href="https://doi.org/10.2190%2FOM.66.3.d">discrimination, stigma and a lack of awareness</a>. One employee described disclosing her pregnancy loss to her manager: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“After my first miscarriage, I told a few people at work. My manager, who I had had a good relationship with, asked me how far along I was, and when I told her I was 14 weeks along, her response was: ‘Well, it was only a ball of cells at that point, it wasn’t really a baby yet.’ To me, it wasn’t a ball of cells at all, it was a baby and I had heard his heartbeat.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Similar responses are plastered all over social media. Just read the comments following Meghan’s <em>New York Times</em> op-ed or any of <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CFyWQLWpJ3u/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link">Chrissy Teigen’s Instagram photos</a> depicting her recent pregnancy loss. </p>
<p>These comments reflect societal beliefs that <a href="https://doi.org/10.2190%2FOM.63.2.e">pregnancy loss is not a legitimate loss</a>, and that “unborn” is synonymous with “unloved.” As a result, employees experiencing this type of loss may be denied the support that they need. </p>
<h2>Supporting employees through pregnancy loss</h2>
<p>Although most employers are grossly ill-equipped to support employees after pregnancy loss, they have the <a href="https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/hr-magazine/0917/pages/how-to-support-employees-through-grief-and-loss.aspx">power to change</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/375544/original/file-20201216-21-iit9pg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A woman is comforted as she cries." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/375544/original/file-20201216-21-iit9pg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/375544/original/file-20201216-21-iit9pg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375544/original/file-20201216-21-iit9pg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375544/original/file-20201216-21-iit9pg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375544/original/file-20201216-21-iit9pg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375544/original/file-20201216-21-iit9pg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/375544/original/file-20201216-21-iit9pg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Employers can take steps to be more compassionate and supportive.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Polina Zimmerman/Pexels)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Employers stand to gain by providing support to employees experiencing pregnancy loss and addressing the associated stigma. </p>
<p>In doing so, employers can improve retention, promote positive work outcomes and support employee health and well-being. Such support could involve:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Adopting compassionate and flexible maternity, parental and/or <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0030222819846419">bereavement leave options</a> that are inclusive of pregnancy loss.</p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02682620902746037">Establishing policies and practices</a> that identify and accommodate the specific needs of bereaved employees.</p></li>
<li><p>Providing free access to psychological counselling, and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000126">reminding recently bereaved employees of these resources</a>.</p></li>
<li><p>Building a <a href="https://www.mentalhealthcommission.ca/English/what-we-do/workplace/national-standard">psychologically safe culture</a> where employees can disclose pregnancy loss and other stigmatized topics without fear of repercussions.</p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07481180902805632">Training supervisors</a> on how to best acknowledge grief and support grieving employees. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Through these efforts, employers may be able to temper the suffering caused by the inescapable collision between loss and work. </p>
<p><em>Authors’ Note: More research is needed on the working experiences of employees following pregnancy loss and how current organizational practices influence their work and well-being outcomes. To participate in this research or learn more, please contact us at stephanie_gilbert@cbu.ca.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/151196/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nothing to disclose</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephanie Gilbert receives funding from Cape Breton University and is affiliated with Gardens of Grace. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jennifer Dimoff does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Employees who have suffered a miscarriage or stillbirth are more likely to quit their jobs and suffer from impaired work performance. Pregnancy loss is not just a personal issue, but a workplace issue.Jennifer Dimoff, Assistant Professor, Organizational Behaviour and Human Resource Management, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of OttawaJacquelyn Brady, Assistant Professor of Psychology, San José State UniversityStephanie Gilbert, Assistant Professor of Organizational Management, Cape Breton UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1440902020-08-12T02:09:24Z2020-08-12T02:09:24Z‘Finding Freedom’: the new Harry and Meghan book is the latest, risky move in a royal PR war<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/352155/original/file-20200811-15-1hu1os1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C27%2C4519%2C2922&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">DPPA/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="Front cover of 'Finding Freedom', Harry and Meghan smiling for cameras" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/352144/original/file-20200811-22-lge36x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/352144/original/file-20200811-22-lge36x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=906&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352144/original/file-20200811-22-lge36x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=906&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352144/original/file-20200811-22-lge36x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=906&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352144/original/file-20200811-22-lge36x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1139&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352144/original/file-20200811-22-lge36x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1139&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352144/original/file-20200811-22-lge36x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1139&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Finding Freedom was published on August 11.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">HarperCollins Publishers</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A new book about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex is generating sensational headlines about their <a href="https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/finding-freedom-meghan-markle-delighted-harry-by-going-to-the-toilet-in-the-woods-while-camping/news-story/e86765a6a2af410371e8bfe842a9c98d">private life</a>, defiance of <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/9-things-we-learned-from-finding-freedom-the-new-book-about">Queen Elizabeth</a> and how Prince William “<a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/snob-william-caused-rift-with-harry-by-urging-caution-over-meghan-sz2fg2scv">behaved like a snob</a>” to his future sister-in-law. </p>
<p>It is also the latest foray of British royals into the minefield that is royal
biography. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.harpercollins.com/products/finding-freedom-omid-scobiecarolyn-durand">Finding Freedom</a>: Harry and Meghan and the Making of a Modern Royal Family, by royal reporters Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand, promises stories about how the royal couple has struggled with “the many rumours and misconceptions that [have] plagued” them since their 2017 engagement. </p>
<p>According to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jul/25/harry-and-meghan-not-interviewed-for-royal-biography">numerous reports</a>, this also includes tales of their clashes with palace officials and <a href="https://www.tatler.com/article/harry-and-meghan-biography-finding-freedom-harry-meghan-and-the-making-of-a-modern-royal-family-details">members of their own families</a>, as well as their <a href="https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/meghan-knew-harry-the-one-22420335">courtship</a> and ill-treatment by the British press.</p>
<p>A spokesperson for the couple has firmly said they “did not contribute to ‘Finding Freedom’”. But there is <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/aug/10/finding-freedom-by-omid-scobie-and-carolyn-durand-harry-and-meghan-and-the-making-of-a-modern-royal-family">widespread speculation</a> Harry and Meghan were nevertheless involved, given the level of detail in the book.</p>
<p>According to the publishers, HarperCollins, the biography has been produced with “<a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-29/harry-and-meghan-finding-freedom-book-extracts/12498340">unique access</a> and written with the participation of those closest to the couple”.</p>
<h2>‘Never explain, never complain’</h2>
<p>We’ve seen this before, and it is a tale that seldom ends happily or well. In 1976, John Wheeler-Bennett, official biographer of George VI, observed royal biography is</p>
<blockquote>
<p>not to be entered into advisedly or lightly; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly and in the fear of God. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Wheeler-Bennett was here referring to the role of the royal biographer, but could just as easily have been referring to the royals themselves.</p>
<p>The royals are not supposed to go on the record and speak of private matters. The dictum ruling the House of Windsor for the best part of the 19th and 20th centuries was they should “never explain, never complain”. </p>
<p>In 1947, when hearing of a former servant’s plans to write about her time in royal service, the Queen Mother summed up the royal family’s strong expectations when she said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>people in positions of confidence with us must be utterly oyster. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Subsequently, the royal family was dismayed when the Duke of Windsor fed his story to a ghostwriter in 1951’s <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books/about/A_King_s_Story.html?id=mmg0AAAACAAJ">A King’s Story</a>, outlining his own version of the abdication crisis. Prince Philip also <a href="https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1184100/royal-news-prince-charles-prince-philip-incensed-worst-mistake-royal-family-spt">disapproved strongly</a> of Prince Charles’s <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/prince-charles-says-he-has-no-regrets-over-dimbleby-book-1443375.html">candid revelations</a> in Jonathan Dimbleby’s 1994 book Prince of Wales: A Biography and subsequent interview.</p>
<h2>Diana’s experience</h2>
<p>Prince Harry could also have learned some valuable lessons from his own mother, who flouted the “utterly oyster” rule. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="Cover of 1992 book, Diana: Her True Story, with portrait of Diana" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/352157/original/file-20200811-15-1rr3yc3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/352157/original/file-20200811-15-1rr3yc3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=872&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352157/original/file-20200811-15-1rr3yc3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=872&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352157/original/file-20200811-15-1rr3yc3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=872&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352157/original/file-20200811-15-1rr3yc3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1096&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352157/original/file-20200811-15-1rr3yc3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1096&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352157/original/file-20200811-15-1rr3yc3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1096&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Diana: Her True Story generated waves of controversy for the Princess in 1992.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">PA/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Diana, Princess of Wales, was behind the most famous royal biography of all time when she commissioned Andrew Morton to “ghost” her tale of marital woe and royal suffering with the 1992 tell-all <a href="https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/7580537">Diana: Her True Story</a>.</p>
<p>Her True Story was a huge commercial success - <a href="https://nypost.com/2017/08/26/my-secret-life-as-princess-dianas-confidant/">having sold more than ten million copies</a> as of 2017. But after the book’s publication, Buckingham Palace and conservative media outlets <a href="https://www.jprstudies.org/2010/08/%22there-were-three-of-us-in-this-biography-so-it-was-a-bit-crowded-the-biographer-as-suitor-and-the-rhetoric-of-romance-in-diana-her-true-story%22-by-giselle-bastin/">went after Morton</a>, expressing disbelief a royal princess would talk to a tabloid journalist with no official royal biographer status. </p>
<p>After publicly eviscerating Morton, and the airing of Diana’s explosive 1995 <a href="https://honey.nine.com.au/royals/princess-diana-bbc-panorama-interview/9b78c80a-69ff-47d2-a531-bf00c9060fe2">Panorama interview</a>, the palace and establishment then went after Diana. Conservative MP and close friend of Prince Charles, <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/nicholas-soames-expelled-conservative-party-defy-boris-johnson-churchill-2019-9?r=AU&IR=T">Nicholas Soames</a>, claimed she must have been “<a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/pm-ticks-off-soames-for-jibe-at-diana-1583354.html">in the advanced stages of paranoia</a>” to have been disclosing the types of things she had.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/diana-revived-the-monarchy-and-airing-old-tapes-wont-change-a-thing-81552">Diana revived the monarchy – and airing old tapes won't change a thing</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>‘Her True Story’ backfires</h2>
<p>Diana thought Her True Story would act as a passport to freedom. She hoped it would help her separate from the royals, while keeping her privileges intact. As journalist Tina Brown wrote in her 2007 book, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/books/08book.html">The Diana Chronicles</a>, the princess thought she would get to keep all</p>
<blockquote>
<p>the good bits of being a princess and doing her own global thing without Charles around to cramp her style. She did not factor in the power of royal disapproval and its consequences. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Nor did she factor in “the risk of … the Palace ‘going nuclear’ and continuing until there [is] nothing left”.</p>
<p>Critically, Diana had thought the revelations in Her True Story would invite her estranged royal relations’ sympathy. As Brown also notes, </p>
<blockquote>
<p>she had been so long in her private panic room she thought this deafening public scream would solve the matter once and for all. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Brown records how Diana quickly regretted the book, telling her friend David Puttnam shortly before the book’s release in 1992,</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I’ve done a really stupid thing. I have allowed a book to be written. I felt it was a good idea, a way of clearing the air, but now I think it was a very stupid thing that will cause all kinds of terrible trouble. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Diana was right. The biography and the Panorama interview hastened Diana’s exit from the royal enclosure. This gave her a short spell of relief and exultation. But this was followed by unhappiness that she had to live, in effect, in exile.</p>
<h2>A long-running soap</h2>
<p>With release of another sensational <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-12/finding-freedom-book-on-harry-and-meghan-split-from-royal-family/12541446">royal biography</a> - that very much gives one side of the story - the parallels between Diana and her son are uncanny. </p>
<p>Harry and Meghan obviously already have a rocky relationship with the palace, given <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/19/harry-and-meghan-to-split-from-royal-family-on-31-march">their split</a> with the royal family in March. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Harry and Meghan looking uncertain at public event." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/352160/original/file-20200811-15-g4uwxs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/352160/original/file-20200811-15-g4uwxs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=474&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352160/original/file-20200811-15-g4uwxs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=474&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352160/original/file-20200811-15-g4uwxs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=474&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352160/original/file-20200811-15-g4uwxs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=595&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352160/original/file-20200811-15-g4uwxs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=595&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/352160/original/file-20200811-15-g4uwxs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=595&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Harry and Meghan are trying to win the PR war, but history suggests a ‘tell-all’ book is a dangerous move.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">DPPA/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Their latest public pronouncement about their “true story” (albeit via interlocutors) is the latest salvo being fired in the long-running soap opera known as “The Windsors”. It has obviously been made to try to win a public relations war. Indeed, public relations is what the royals do. They don’t have “jobs” as such, but merely have to be “seen to be”.</p>
<p>Finding Freedom might have felt like a good idea to the Sussexes — an opportunity to set the record straight - but as Diana’s experience suggests, they may well come to regret the opening of their particular oyster of royal rage. </p>
<p>Their contribution of yet another chapter to the Windsor soap is one that will likely prove unstoppable, insatiable even. And one thing is almost certain: Harry and Meghan will very probably lose any editorial control they thought they had over their own story.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-crown-series-3-review-olivia-colman-shines-as-an-older-frumpier-elizabeth-126340">The Crown series 3 review: Olivia Colman shines as an older, frumpier Elizabeth</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/144090/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Giselle Bastin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Princess Diana’s bad experience with a ‘tell-all’ book in 1992 should have been a cautionary tale for her son.Giselle Bastin, Associate Professor of English, Flinders UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1317722020-03-01T13:11:15Z2020-03-01T13:11:15ZHow much will Harry and Meghan’s security cost when the government stops paying?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/319187/original/file-20200308-118890-mluvtd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=555%2C341%2C2073%2C1731&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Harry and Meghan are seen in March in London.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE ASSOCIATED PRESS</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Canadian government says <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harry-meghan-security-costs-rcmp-canada-1.5478022">it won’t be providing Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s security</a> as of the end of March when they complete their royal duties. Ever since the Duke and Duchess of Sussex <a href="https://www.macleans.ca/royalty/meghan-and-harry-quitting-royal-life-your-questions-answered/">announced their intention to reduce their royal duties</a> and move to Canada, one of the most debated topics has been how much would security cost for the couple? And who will pick up the tab? </p>
<p>Many have speculated on the total security costs for Harry and his family, ranging from <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-uk-discussions-harry-meghan-1.5442113">as low as $1.7 million</a> to <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harry-meghan-security-costs-rcmp-canada-1.5478022">as high as $30 million</a>. A recent Angus Reid poll found that <a href="http://angusreid.org/harry-meghan-canada-monarchy/">almost 73 per cent of Canadians do not support the idea of taxpayers covering the security costs</a> for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. </p>
<p>Yet to date, no one has actually itemized how these “costs” were determined.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1232288563313684480"}"></div></p>
<h2>Figuring out what to worry about</h2>
<p>Before any security measures can be implemented, a detailed <a href="https://cyber.gc.ca/sites/default/files/publications/tra-emr-1-e.pdf">threat risk assessment (TRA)</a> needs to be completed for the family. The purpose of the TRA is to complete a comprehensive review of all threats facing the royal family and to analyze the effectiveness of existing countermeasures. </p>
<p>A credible and professional TRA <a href="https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/ll-hzrds-ssssmnt/index-en.aspx">will use approved risk assessment methodologies</a> to determine threat probability, asset vulnerability and the consequences of any risks materializing to the family. The TRA should illuminate important information such as past threats against the family, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012490560-3/50028-1">ongoing concerns of the security staff</a> and the current threat landscape in Canada. </p>
<p>Once completed, the findings of the TRA drive the creation of the baseline security program by providing cost-effective recommendations to the family. The <a href="https://erm.ncsu.edu/library/article/understanding-risk-appetite">risk appetite</a> of the royals will play a large part in determining the final security program implemented.</p>
<p>The costs of conducting a threat risk assessment can vary. One American firm providing the service to high net-worth clients <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/21/your-money/taking-a-rational-look-at-the-risk-of-threats.html">charges between US$25,000 and US$50,000</a>. </p>
<h2>Residential security</h2>
<p>One of the most vulnerable situations for the family is when they are in a static position such as their residence. <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/archives/when-aline-chr%C3%A9tien-discovered-an-intruder-at-24-sussex-drive-1.4889688">From the knife-wielding attacker in former prime minister Jean Chretien’s official government residence</a> to <a href="https://www.macleans.ca/news/new-twist-in-sherman-murders-family-and-police-join-forces/">the murders of billionaire couple Barry and Honey Sherman in their Toronto home</a>, the home invasion of public figures is a real threat not to be taken lightly. </p>
<p>Whether it is installing a high-tech alarm system or having state-of-the-art security cameras, the recommendations from the TRA will determine the appropriate security posture for the residence. <a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/globe-wealth/article-how-the-wealthy-ensure-the-security-of-their-families-and-homes/">One Toronto-based residential security professional</a> says security measures like these can be installed for about $50,000. </p>
<p>A TRA might also call for perimeter fencing, a panic room, a guard house and other costly security infrastructure. <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/luxury-panic-rooms-gun-violence-increased-demand-rich-people-2018-11">The installation of a panic room alone can range from US$50,000 to US$500,000</a>.</p>
<p>It has become very popular in recent years for wealthy individuals to purchase <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimdobson/2017/04/24/armored-and-bulletproof-luxury-cars-how-the-rich-and-famous-escape-in-style/#3443ce97248b">luxury armoured vehicles for their personal security</a>. Bulletproof windows and reinforced suspension can be custom-made for a large SUV. <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canada-s-luxury-armoured-car-industry-shows-some-mettle-1.3177903">A Toronto-based company specializes in manufacturing such vehicles</a> for celebrities, corporate executives and government officials. The price for one of the vehicles starts at a not-so-cheap $1 million.</p>
<h2>Safe and secure, but is it necessary?</h2>
<p>The family will have to decide whether they want private close protection officers. Police officers, like the RCMP, would have come with a heavy political price tag in the form of approvals from the Canadian and/or British government as well as the associated controversy. The former gives the family <a href="https://time.com/5762261/prince-harry-meghan-markle-financial-independence/">the financial independence that they have expressed they want to obtain</a> as they begin their new lives as private citizens. </p>
<p>However, the private security option is also <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/who-may-carry-handguns-in-canada-1.1135084">extremely difficult as private security guards in Canada require permissions to carry firearms as close protection officers.</a> In order for them to carry firearms, <a href="https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/sor-98-207/fulltext.html">it would need to be demonstrated that credible threats exist</a> to the lives of Harry and his family.</p>
<p>If the threat assessment recommends private close protection as a viable option, it might take up to five full-time security personnel to ensure 365 days of coverage. According to Jim Rovers, senior vice-president of operations for <a href="https://www.afimacglobal.com/">Afimac, an international security consulting firm</a>, a detail of five full-time close protection officers would cost the royal couple just over $1.4 million per year. </p>
<p>The advantage of using a contracted security provider is that the liability, training and staffing issues of the security personnel are borne by the provider. This means fewer administrative duties for the couple.</p>
<p>As the Canadian government has closed the door on the possibility of a <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bill-morneau-security-costs-harry-meghan-1.5424988">public-private partnership</a>, it is the TRA that will ultimately determine the appropriate level of security for the family. </p>
<p>It may even call for <a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/services/defence/nationalsecurity/terrorism-threat-level.html">a reduced security posture in Canada</a> <a href="https://www.mi5.gov.uk/threat-levels">given its lower threat level than the U.K.</a> According to United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings, Amazon spends US$1.6 million annually to <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristinstoller/2019/03/13/while-the-wealthiest-american-billionaires-got-richer-corporate-spending-on-their-personal-security-didntexcept-at-facebook/">protect the world’s richest man, Jeff Bezos</a>, and he lives in the United States, a higher-risk country. </p>
<p>As a security expert, when I tally up all the initial security costs — from conducting a TRA, having basic residential security, to having an armoured SUV and five full time close protection officers — it comes to just over $2.5 million. But many of these are one-time capital costs, specifically for the residence and transportation. </p>
<p>In the end, it is the threat risk assessment that will have the final say in the true costs. Harry and Meghan will ultimately have to accept some or all of its recommendations based on their desires and the budget available to them. </p>
<p>No doubt, it’ll be costly but now they know that they won’t have the Canadian government’s help to fall back on.</p>
<p><em>This is an updated version of a story originally published on March 1, 2020. It clarifies that private protection officers, not police or RCMP, would provide the Duke and Duchess of Sussex with the independence they have requested.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/131772/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sean Spence does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Prince Harry and Meghan Markle will no longer have their security covered by the Canadian government by the end of March. But what kinds of costs will the famous couple have to cover themselves?Sean Spence, Doctorate Student - Security Risk Management, University of PortsmouthLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1302742020-01-22T15:11:47Z2020-01-22T15:11:47ZLet’s laud Harry and Meghan for their act of self-care — and leave them alone<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/311399/original/file-20200122-117933-ycwzvp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C120%2C3484%2C2294&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Duke and Duchess of Sussex attend the annual WellChild Awards in London in October 2019. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source"> (Toby Melville/Pool via AP)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In just the first month of 2020, #MeghanandHarry has been trending across social media more often than not. </p>
<p>In a series of public statements over the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/B7EaGS_Jpb9/">widely followed Instagram account</a>, as well as in a public speech by Prince Harry on the eve of his departure for a new life in Canada, the most recent famous Royal couple has distanced themselves in ways both big and small from the Royal Family.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/55OQ7aC7hW4?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">CBC News.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This includes giving up their royal duties and titles. Quite frankly, I would wager the majority of us <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/meghan-markle-prince-harry-royals-racism_n_5e174a0cc5b6b32c72bf01b2?ri18n=true">don’t blame them for these largely unprecedented moves</a>.</p>
<p>That’s because Meghan Markle’s treatment by some media and public commentators <a href="https://globalnews.ca/news/6431251/meghan-markle-harry-timeline/">since 2016</a>, when her relationship with Harry became public, has shifted from excitement and curiosity to judgment, unrealistic expectations and unfounded accusations that include <a href="https://www.vox.com/first-person/2020/1/17/21070351/meghan-markle-prince-harry-leaving-royal-family-uk-racism">both overt</a> and <a href="https://www.insider.com/racism-british-media-meghan-markle-prince-harry-royal-step-back-2020-1">implicit forms of racism</a>. </p>
<p>After the fairy-tale engagement in fall 2017 and their marriage in the spring of 2018, public sentiment has seemingly turned against the couple, assisted by the media. This includes a <a href="https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-double-standards-royal">slew of unfavourable comparisons</a> between Meghan and Kate Middleton, the Duchess of Cambridge, and gossip that the Duchess of Sussex is an unpleasant and demanding diva completely out of touch with the <a href="https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1130005/Meghan-Markle-Kate-Middleton-news-Prince-Harry-baby-Archie-latest-CBS">royal way of life</a>. </p>
<h2>Women who become royals treated harshly</h2>
<p>Meghan is certainly not the only woman to experience negative media coverage and shifting public opinions once entering the Royal Family. </p>
<p>Harry’s mother, the late Diana, Princess of Wales, also dealt with the devastating effects of an intrusive and unkind media, especially <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/diana-and-the-media-she-used-them-and-they-used-her-until-the-day-she-died/2017/08/24/c98418ca-812d-11e7-b359-15a3617c767b_story.htm">after her divorce from Prince Charles in 1996</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/311239/original/file-20200121-117921-bubf8t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/311239/original/file-20200121-117921-bubf8t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/311239/original/file-20200121-117921-bubf8t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/311239/original/file-20200121-117921-bubf8t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/311239/original/file-20200121-117921-bubf8t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/311239/original/file-20200121-117921-bubf8t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=525&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/311239/original/file-20200121-117921-bubf8t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=525&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/311239/original/file-20200121-117921-bubf8t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=525&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Camilla Parker-Bowles, the Duchess of Cornwall, is seen with Prince Charles in November 2014 in Mexico.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Miguel Sierra</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Duchess of Cornwall, Camilla Parker-Bowles, also faced extensive <a href="https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/why-camilla-parker-bowles-said-she-was-a-prisoner-after-her-affair-with-prince-charles-was-revealed.html/">scrutiny and unpopularity</a> because of the role she played in the breakdown of Charles and Diana’s marriage. She was subjected to unkind commentary about her age and appearance for years and compared unfavourably to the glamorous Diana. Sarah Ferguson, Prince Andrew’s ex-wife, was similarly derided about her appearance.</p>
<p>Further back in history, when King Edward VIII abdicated the throne in 1936 to pursue his relationship with American Wallis Simpson, she was painted as a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/09/meghan-harry-wallis-simpson-edward-history">promiscuous, scheming femme fatale</a> — not unlike the modern-day commentary directed Meghan’s way.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/311240/original/file-20200121-117962-d1gdxw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/311240/original/file-20200121-117962-d1gdxw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/311240/original/file-20200121-117962-d1gdxw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=467&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/311240/original/file-20200121-117962-d1gdxw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=467&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/311240/original/file-20200121-117962-d1gdxw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=467&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/311240/original/file-20200121-117962-d1gdxw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=586&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/311240/original/file-20200121-117962-d1gdxw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=586&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/311240/original/file-20200121-117962-d1gdxw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=586&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In this June 1937 photo, the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, Wallis Simpson, pose after their wedding in France.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This treatment of women who enter into relationships with men of the Royal Family suggests a distrust of non-royals and a protectiveness of the family boundaries. Who gets to be a royal is apparently a matter of grave public debate. </p>
<p>This ongoing public distrust of non-royal women includes a series of gender, race and class beliefs that are unsettling. The things that set Meghan apart from Kate in public perception are telling. </p>
<p>The Duchess of Cambridge is from an upper middle-class family with longstanding ties to the British aristocracy. She met her husband, Prince William, while attending the prestigious St. Andrews University and happily left her independent life behind to become a royal. </p>
<p>Since her marriage and the birth of her three children, Kate has been coded as ideal in terms of her ethnicity, class and ambitions.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/311238/original/file-20200121-117954-1c60ef5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/311238/original/file-20200121-117954-1c60ef5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=370&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/311238/original/file-20200121-117954-1c60ef5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=370&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/311238/original/file-20200121-117954-1c60ef5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=370&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/311238/original/file-20200121-117954-1c60ef5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/311238/original/file-20200121-117954-1c60ef5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/311238/original/file-20200121-117954-1c60ef5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Kate, Duchess of Cambridge, left, and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, right, attend the women’s singles final match at the Wimbledon Tennis Championships in July 2019. Meghan has been compared unfavourably to Kate by the British tabloids for months.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Ben Curtis</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In contrast, Meghan is biracial, American and was raised in a largely <a href="https://www.elle.com/uk/life-and-culture/news/a26855/more-than-an-other/">middle-class environment</a>. She had an established career as a Hollywood actress and a lifestyle brand before meeting Harry. </p>
<p>She has been an outspoken advocate for <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/women/meghan-markle-gender-equality-prince-harry-men-one-young-world-a9170731.html">gender and racial equity</a> her whole life. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBdqwIcTv4w">And she’s been candid about the challenges</a> of leaving all that behind to join Harry as an ambassador of the British monarchy. The different standards to which Meghan and Kate have been judged tell a story indeed of classism, sexism, nationalism and racism.</p>
<h2>Sets of beliefs</h2>
<p>This largely critical treatment of women entering the Royal Family, and Meghan in particular, operates from three underlying sets of beliefs. </p>
<p>These include a belief in romantic fantasy, nationalism and the danger of women in positions of power. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/311246/original/file-20200121-117927-1c19hl1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C28%2C3749%2C2132&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/311246/original/file-20200121-117927-1c19hl1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/311246/original/file-20200121-117927-1c19hl1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/311246/original/file-20200121-117927-1c19hl1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/311246/original/file-20200121-117927-1c19hl1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/311246/original/file-20200121-117927-1c19hl1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/311246/original/file-20200121-117927-1c19hl1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The couple is seen on their wedding day in May 2018.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Paul Ellis/via AP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Each of these belief systems held by the public and the media are not uniform. There is support as well as suspicion among the public about Meghan and Harry’s relationship. This reflects how the couple has become a signpost for sentiments not wholly related to them at all, but are reflective of broader social anxieties at the moment. </p>
<p>Outsider women like Meghan are held up to an unreasonably high standards due to the fantasy narrative of a woman meeting her prince and living happily ever after. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/311249/original/file-20200121-117949-1g54umb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/311249/original/file-20200121-117949-1g54umb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/311249/original/file-20200121-117949-1g54umb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=479&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/311249/original/file-20200121-117949-1g54umb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=479&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/311249/original/file-20200121-117949-1g54umb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=479&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/311249/original/file-20200121-117949-1g54umb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=602&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/311249/original/file-20200121-117949-1g54umb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=602&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/311249/original/file-20200121-117949-1g54umb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=602&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Prince Charles and Diana, Princess of Wales, march down the aisle of St. Paul’s Cathedral at the end of their wedding ceremony in July 1981.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As we watch this play out in real life via figures like Princess Diana and the Duchess of Sussex, the public doesn’t just project their positive fantasies onto the storybook romances, but also their negative emotions, and the woman at the centre of it receives all the flack. They become the lightning rod for all of the complexity such a powerful fairy-tale narrative evokes in western popular culture.</p>
<p>Further, present-day Great Britain was built through a centuries-long project of colonial expansion. That history is part of how it defines itself as a nation. </p>
<p>Colonialism results in a world view that distrusts others, outsiders or those who are different. This helped rationalize violent practices of land occupation and slavery, because it dehumanized those victimized by the British Empire. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/colonialism-was-a-disaster-and-the-facts-prove-it-84496">Colonialism was a disaster and the facts prove it</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This continues with the xenophobia and racism present in the modern-day U.K. It also extends to additional frameworks of otherness that operate when it comes to classism and sexism.</p>
<h2>Negative stereotypes</h2>
<p>British nationalism is most evident in how the U.K. public circulates negative stereotypes about Meghan’s biracial identity, which even the Royal Family, spurred by Harry, spoke out against in 2016 when it was first revealed the couple was dating.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"795931735443861504"}"></div></p>
<p>Finally, if public discussions of gender inequity in the past four years has taught us anything, it’s that women in positions of power, whether political or otherwise, <a href="https://theconversation.com/another-barrier-for-women-in-politics-violence-113637">make some uneasy and sometimes angry.</a></p>
<p>If the vitriol directed at Meghan by social media users reflects a subset of public opinion, it’s fuelled by a belief that she’s single-handedly destroying the fabric of the Royal Family and the traditions it upholds. </p>
<p>This criticism amounts to a condemnation of Harry and Meghan’s attempts to push against tradition, to propose new models, to hold a different world view. Ironically, their choices now seem understandable in the face of the ongoing vitriol — both as an act of self care and an act of refusal to tolerate further abuse. </p>
<p>If we’re ever to move past these outmoded values of gender, race and class, we need to now wish them well — and challenge those who would prefer it all remains the same.</p>
<p>[ <em>Like what you’ve read? Want more?</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/ca/newsletters?utm_source=TCCA&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=likethis">Sign up for The Conversation’s daily newsletter</a>. ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/130274/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Shana MacDonald receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. </span></em></p>If we’re ever to move past outmoded values of gender, race and class, we need to wish Prince Harry and Meghan Markle well — and challenge those who would prefer everything remains the same.Shana MacDonald, Assistant Professor of Communication Arts, University of WaterlooLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1297262020-01-10T17:20:38Z2020-01-10T17:20:38ZPrince Harry and Meghan Markle: why half in, half out just isn’t an option for royals<p>Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s decision to step back from royal duties has been described as a crisis for the monarchy, but they are the ones who are most likely to suffer the damage.</p>
<p>Members of the royal family are in a conflicted position. They lead lives of great privilege, but they also lack fundamental freedoms. They aren’t free to choose a career, they cannot speak freely and they have limited freedom to privacy and family life, which the rest of us take for granted.</p>
<p>Harry and Meghan are not alone in finding that frustrating, Prince <a href="https://www.wmagazine.com/story/prince-laurent-belgium-allowance">Laurent of Belgium</a> is another who is visibly unhappy in the role.</p>
<p>The harsh reality is that younger sons are spares who are ultimately dispensable from a hereditary monarchy: it is only those in direct line of succession who count. As spares they are subject to the same personal restrictions as the immediate heirs, without either the prospect of succession or the freedom to develop truly independent careers of their own.</p>
<p>Other European monarchies (encouraged by parsimonious governments and legislatures) have learned to keep the core team as small as possible. It can be just four people – in Norway and Spain it is the king and queen, the heir and their spouse. In 2019, the King of Sweden removed five grandchildren from the royal family, under parliamentary pressure to reduce its size and its cost.</p>
<p>The UK has a larger population – over ten times the size of Norway – and it could therefore be contended that it makes sense for its royal family to be larger to carry out necessary duties. A bigger team is also required given <a href="https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/sites/constitution-unit/files/170.pdf">the realms</a>: the queen is head of state of <a href="http://www.commonwealthofnations.org/sectors/government/governor_general/">15 countries other than the UK</a>, and Prince Charles and his sons make regular visits to countries such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand. In total, 15 members of the British royal family conducted almost 4,000 royal engagements in 2019 alone.</p>
<h2>Cutting the spares</h2>
<p>Prince Charles is said to want a <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7743661/Prince-Charles-cut-royal-family-just-William-Harry-wives-children-Andrew-scandal.html">smaller, streamlined monarchy</a>, perhaps just the core team of the queen, Charles and Camilla, William and Kate: but with a smaller team they could accept fewer royal patronages and fulfil far fewer engagements. It is not clear how far Prince Charles has thought through such consequences any more than Harry and Meghan have thought through the consequences for others of what they want.</p>
<p>The media has portrayed this as a crisis for the monarchy, and it is indeed a family crisis, but the monarchy as an institution will suffer no serious or lasting damage. Opinion polls consistently show between <a href="https://whorunsbritain.blogs.lincoln.ac.uk/2017/10/14/public-opinion-and-the-future-of-the-monarchy/">70 and 80% support</a> for preserving the monarchy – popularity ratings politicians would die for.</p>
<p>The damage is more likely to be suffered by Harry and Meghan, who may have misjudged the extent to which their celebrity is independent of their royal status. Their plans to carve out “a progressive new role”, and to “work to become financially independent” have been widely criticised as unrealistic.</p>
<p><a href="https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2020/01/09/f8082/1">Initial polling</a> shows some public sympathy for their aims but strong objection to their continuing to receive public money. Royal officials have been tasked to find a compromise, but it is hard to see how they can be half in, and half out of the royal family and reside regularly abroad.</p>
<h2>Can you ever really leave?</h2>
<p>There are two levels of difficulty. The first is sharing the load. All members of the royal family who carry out public duties do so on behalf of the queen, and must be willing to undertake their fair share of the duties assigned to them. The second is the risk that becoming financially independent will involve exploiting their royal titles and royal connections for commercial gain. Other members of the family who accept the constraints will understandably feel aggrieved if Harry and Meghan are allowed to pick and choose.</p>
<p>The Sussexes nevertheless deserve our sympathy. In a comparative study of the European monarchies, due to be published in our upcoming book <a href="https://www.bloomsburyprofessional.com/uk/the-role-of-monarchy-in-modern-democracy-9781509931033/">The Role of Monarchy in Modern Democracy</a>, we argue that it should be possible for minor royals to opt out of the gilded cage if they find the restrictions too great. But opting out would need to be total: giving up not just their public duties but their public funding, their royal titles, their security – trying as far as possible to become private people.</p>
<p>It would not be easy to undergo such a complete change of lifestyle. And it may not prove possible: the public might still consider them to be a royal couple, and the media might continue to portray them as such – keeping them in the spotlight, whether they want to be or not.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/129726/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>It’s either in or out for a minor royal. A mix and match approach raises too many problems.Robert Hazell, Professor of British Politics and Government & Director of the Constitution Unit, UCLBob Morris, Honorary Senior Research Associate, Constitution Unit, UCLLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1296242020-01-09T05:48:11Z2020-01-09T05:48:11ZPrince Harry’s decision to ‘step back’ from the monarchy is a gift to republicans<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/309213/original/file-20200109-138725-1cgqd64.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=27%2C4%2C3067%2C2306&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle visiting Canada House in London this week.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">FACUNDO ARRIZABALAGA/EPA</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Bill Shorten, when leader of the opposition, promised a plebiscite on Australia becoming a republic if he won the country’s 2019 federal election. That did not happen but it is interesting to imagine what the result of such a vote would have been.</p>
<p>On the one hand, membership of the chief lobby group, the Australian Republic Movement, has been <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/feb/24/love-him-or-hate-him-peter-fitzsimons-gives-republicanism-a-megaphone">growing steadily</a> since 2015. For monarchists, however, the popularity of the Princes William and Harry and their young families has been seen as crucial to maintaining the royal link.</p>
<p>This is why the decision of Harry and his wife Meghan Markle to <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-09/prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-to-step-back-as-senior-royals/11854040">“step back”</a> from their position as senior royals and split their time between North America and Britain is significant.</p>
<p>A large part of the couple’s appeal is that they appear relatable when compared to the Queen or Prince Charles. It certainly is relatable for a couple in their 30s with a young family to want to move from home and be financially independent. The catch for monarchists is that much of the couple’s popularity comes from their rejecting traditional royal roles.</p>
<p>Harry’s public image has been carefully stage managed by Buckingham Palace. With his father, brother, nephews and niece all ahead of him, it is unlikely he will ever assume the throne. Nevertheless, he remains one of the most recognisable royals and is key to how the public, in Britain and Australia, sees the royal family.</p>
<p>As a younger man, Harry had a reputation for <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2193321/Prince-Harry-Vegas-A-sleazy-club-nude-blonde-truth-pictures.html">wild parties</a> and was notoriously spotted wearing a <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-16/the-sun-shows-prince-harry-wearing-nazi-uniform/9752022">Nazi uniform</a>. His career in the military and his advocacy for wounded soldiers, however, have endeared him to many. His marriage to a popular actor was a further coup for the royal marketing team.</p>
<p>The Queen is the longest serving British sovereign, having reigned for 67 years. There has long been concern that her son, and next in line to the throne, Charles, does not share her popularity. Monarchists fear that his reign could spark republican movements around the Commonwealth and even in Britain.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/309218/original/file-20200109-138689-107ndzj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/309218/original/file-20200109-138689-107ndzj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/309218/original/file-20200109-138689-107ndzj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/309218/original/file-20200109-138689-107ndzj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/309218/original/file-20200109-138689-107ndzj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/309218/original/file-20200109-138689-107ndzj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/309218/original/file-20200109-138689-107ndzj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/309218/original/file-20200109-138689-107ndzj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II recording her annual Christmas broadcast in Windsor Castle, on 24 December 2019. There is no photo of Harry on her desk.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA/Steve Parsons/Press Association</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The disturbing details of Prince Andrew’s <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/dec/07/prince-andrew-jeffrey-epstein-what-you-need-to-know">relationship</a> with sex offender Jeffrey Epstein have further eroded the reputation of the royal family. As a result, the roles of William and Harry as the public faces of the monarchy are seen as crucial. It is regularly rumoured the Queen may even <a href="https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1223546/Queen-Elizabeth-II-news-Prince-Charles-heir-throne-Prince-William-Duke-of-Cambridge-royal">bypass Charles</a> to give the crown to William.</p>
<p>In this context, the decision of Harry and Meghan to step back and the perception that they, particularly Meghan, have been poorly treated by the royal family is a gift to republicans.</p>
<h2>Australia and the monarchy</h2>
<p>Australia’s relationship with the monarchy is complex. In the colonial era of the 19th century and the <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/dominion-British-Commonwealth">dominion era</a>, until the middle of the 20th, the royals were seen as the epitome of Britishness. Crucially, Australians overwhelmingly also saw themselves as British.</p>
<p>The most spectacular example of a royal stepping back from their duties during this period was when Edward VIII <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-15/how-australians-learnt-of-king-edward-abdication/9761878">abdicated</a> in 1936. His decision to pursue a relationship with divorced, American, socialite Wallis Simpson caused a constitutional crisis. Australian prime minister Joseph Lyons concurred with other commonwealth leaders that she would not be accepted as queen so the king must abdicate.</p>
<p>Despite the scandal, it was never seriously proposed then that Australia should cut its ties with the British monarchy. This is a key contextual difference to today’s situation.</p>
<p>Harry and Meghan’s decision comes at a time when Australians are talking very seriously about becoming a republic, although recent polling has provided mixed results. A February 2018 <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/feb/21/australians-unswayed-by-royal-nuptials-as-support-for-monarchy-hits-record-low">poll</a> by Research Now found 52% supported a republic with 25% unsure and just 22% supporting the monarchy. </p>
<p>A <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/love-for-young-royals-wounds-republicans/news-story/63bb1e8f8a064ddf863a2afe3ef36ade">Newspoll</a> in November 2018, just after a royal tour by Harry and Meghan, found only 40% supported a republic with 48% against. This was the first time since 1999 that a poll found more people opposed the change.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/309221/original/file-20200109-138653-1v7koen.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/309221/original/file-20200109-138653-1v7koen.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/309221/original/file-20200109-138653-1v7koen.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/309221/original/file-20200109-138653-1v7koen.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/309221/original/file-20200109-138653-1v7koen.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/309221/original/file-20200109-138653-1v7koen.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/309221/original/file-20200109-138653-1v7koen.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/309221/original/file-20200109-138653-1v7koen.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Britain’s Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex and his wife Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, at the Invictus Games in Sydney in 2018.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dan Himbrechts/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In 2019, it was even reportedly <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/palace-considered-making-prince-harry-australia-s-governor-general-20190421-p51g0r.html">proposed</a> that Harry might be made the governor-general of Australia. This move would have potentially boosted royal support but was ultimately dismissed.</p>
<p>A <a href="https://www.republic.org.au/media/2019/6/4/new-poll-shows-young-australians-overwhelmingly-back-a-republic">Dynata poll</a> in June 2019 then found that support for a republic among under 25-year-olds had grown to 57%, with 50% of those 25-34 supporting a change.</p>
<p>With the future of the monarchy uncertain, Buckingham Palace appears disappointed with Harry and Meghan. An official statement <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/08/prince-harry-and-meghan-say-they-are-stepping-back-from-royal-family">noted</a> “these are complicated issues that will take time to work through”. Reading between the lines, it’s likely the decision - <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-09/prince-harry-and-meghan-markle-to-step-back-as-senior-royals/11854040">reportedly made without consulting the Queen or Prince Charles</a> - hurt.</p>
<p>The monarchy has transformed itself over the last century. Issues like divorce and marrying an American (both forbidden for Edward VIII) have been gradually, perhaps grudgingly, accepted. Its chameleon-like nature has let it survive from the age of empires to the age of democracy.</p>
<p>In principle, the issue of a republic (in Australia or Britain) is separate from the personalities of the royal family. Regardless, if Harry and Meghan are seen as separated from the monarchy, or worse yet, victims of it, its long term survival is threatened.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/129624/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Benjamin T. Jones does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>If Harry and Meghan are seen as separated from the monarchy, or worse yet, victims of it, its long term survival is threatened.Benjamin T. Jones, Lecturer in History, CQUniversity AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1246192019-10-02T15:38:14Z2019-10-02T15:38:14ZMeghan Markle letter: what the law says about the press, privacy and the public’s right to know<p>The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have announced plans to sue the Mail on Sunday and its parent company Associated Newspapers, after they published a <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6686817/Letter-showing-true-tragedy-Meghan-Markles-rift-father.html">private letter</a> from Meghan to her father earlier this year.</p>
<p><a href="https://sussexofficial.uk/">In a press release</a>, the lawyers for The Duchess of Sussex said that they have taken legal action over what they called an:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Intrusive and unlawful publication of a private letter written by the Duchess of Sussex, which is part of a campaign by this media group to publish false and deliberately derogatory stories about her, as well as her husband. Given the refusal of Associated Newspapers to resolve this issue satisfactorily, we have issued proceedings to redress this breach of privacy, infringement of copyright and the aforementioned media agenda.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>A spokesman for the newspaper said: “The Mail on Sunday stands by the story it published and will be defending this case vigorously. Specifically, we categorically deny that the Duchess’s letter was edited in any way that changed its meaning.”</p>
<p>But can private letters be protected by copyright – and if so, who owns it? Copyright protects original literary works, among other things, such as books and literature – and this also includes letters. Therefore, a letter can be protected by copyright.</p>
<h2>Who has copyright?</h2>
<p>Under <a href="https://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/uk_law_summary">UK copyright law</a>, the owner of a piece of work is usually the person who created it. Once a person owns copyright in a piece of work, the law allows them to restrict others from copying or sharing that work without permission. So, the content of the letter belongs to the writer of the letter – although the actual physical letter belongs to the recipient.</p>
<p>This means that in order to share the content of a letter, the permission of the writer would be required in order to avoid copyright infringement.</p>
<p>But there are exceptions to copyright. These are circumstances where permission is not needed – for example, if the use is for the purpose of criticism, review or quotation, or for the purpose of reporting current events. Each of the copyright exceptions have specific requirements that must be followed in order to benefit from them.</p>
<p>The exception for <a href="https://www.copyrightuser.org/understand/exceptions/quotation/">criticism, review or quotation</a> requires that the material used was already available to the public – so this would not apply to a private letter. The exception for <a href="https://www.copyrightuser.org/understand/exceptions/news-reporting/">reporting current events</a> requires that the use of the material is fair. </p>
<p>When considering if a use is fair, a court would take into consideration if the work had already been published, or whether it was confidential. The courts are unlikely to decide that use of material that is confidential was fair unless a legitimate and continuing public interest could be demonstrated, for example “leaked documents” with a clear public interest.</p>
<h2>Public interest?</h2>
<p>In 2006, the <a href="https://www.emplaw.co.uk/node/15309">Prince of Wales sued Associated Newspapers</a> after they published extracts from his diary. The prince also brought an action for copyright infringement and breach of privacy. In relation to copyright, it was found that the prince was the copyright owner and that the reproduction of the diary was an infringement of that copyright. </p>
<p>Associated Newspapers argued that they benefited from the copyright exception of news reporting, but the court found that the quotations from the journal had been chosen for the purpose of reporting on the revelation of the contents of the journal as itself an event of interest and not for the purpose of reporting on current events.</p>
<h2>Privacy law</h2>
<p>It is here that the European Convention on Human Rights comes into play. In the context of publishing private information, <a href="https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_8_ENG.pdf">Article 8</a>, which provides a right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence, would be weighed against <a href="https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/incorporated-rights/articles-index/article-10/">Article 10</a>, which provides the right to freedom of expression and information.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/ben-stokes-v-the-sun-gross-intrusion-or-simple-reportage-how-media-privacy-law-works-123827">Ben Stokes v The Sun: gross intrusion or simple reportage? How media privacy law works</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In the UK, the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/data-protection">Data Protection Act 2018</a> (the UK’s implementation of the <a href="https://eugdpr.org/">General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)</a>) provides protection for personal information. This means that personal information cannot be processed or published without permission. There is a possibility of arguing that a breach of this law is allowed when it is necessary for the public interest, for example if it supports or promotes democratic engagement.</p>
<p>But just because something is interesting to the public, does not mean that it is in the public interest. Public interest requires a higher level of justification, in order to justify the breach of the individual’s human rights.</p>
<p>In this 2006 case, the Prince of Wales also argued that the information in his diary was confidential and therefore protected under Article 8. Associated Newspapers argued that the publication of the diary was in the public interest and permitted under Article 10.</p>
<p>The judge, The Hon Mr Justice Blackburne, agreed with the Prince of Wales, ruling that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The right to be able to commit his private thoughts to writing and keep them private, the more so as he is inescapably a public figure who is subject to constant and intense media interest … The Prince of Wales is as much entitled to enjoy confidentiality for his private thoughts as an aspect of his own ‘human autonomy and dignity’ as is any other.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Although a letter and a diary are slightly different – in that a letter was intended to be read by the recipient and a diary is usually intended to be entirely private – it is likely that they would be treated the same in the circumstances of being published without permission. </p>
<p>So, in general, publishing a letter without permission could be ruled to be an infringement of copyright and breach of privacy and confidentiality.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/124619/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hayleigh Bosher does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The Duke and Duchess of Sussex say they plan to sue a UK paper for publishing a private letter.Hayleigh Bosher, Lecturer in Intellectual Property Law, Brunel University LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1160902019-05-07T09:28:43Z2019-05-07T09:28:43ZRoyal baby Sussex: seventh in line for the throne and liable for US taxes<p>Baby Sussex, the newborn son of Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex, and Prince Harry, will be seventh in line for the British throne. He will also <a href="https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-legal-considerations/us-citizenship/Acquisition-US-Citizenship-Child-Born-Abroad.html">be considered a US</a> citizen from birth by US authorities, regardless of whether paperwork is filed to formalise that status. And, like the other <a href="https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/ethnicity/articles/2011censusanalysisethnicityandreligionofthenonukbornpopulationinenglandandwales/2015-06-18">180,000 US citizens living in the UK</a>, Baby Sussex will be <a href="https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/us-citizens-and-resident-aliens-abroad">liable for US taxes</a> as soon as he starts having an income.</p>
<p>US citizens, regardless of where they live, have been taxed on global income since 1962, when the Revenue Act removed the previously <a href="https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2537&context=dlj">unlimited exclusion</a>. While most US citizens living in the UK and other European countries <a href="https://www.americansabroad.org/us-taxes-abroad-for-dummies-update/">do not actually owe taxes</a>, thanks to <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/usa-tax-treaties">double taxation agreements</a>, research by <a href="https://www.democratsabroad.org/taxation">Democrats Abroad</a> shows that many need to pay tax experts more than US$500 per year to arrive at that conclusion, a serious <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54738927e4b0ec2675529a1e/t/5cb8b4968165f5f2f2d6cad2/1555608727111/US+Tax+Code+Disproportionately+Burdens+Americans+Abroad.pdf">financial burden</a> for many.</p>
<p>Nor is taxation the only additional burden for overseas Americans. They must also <a href="https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/report-of-foreign-bank-and-financial-accounts-fbar">report foreign bank accounts</a> – including their local checking accounts and retirement funds – to the US Treasury Department if the aggregate balance of all foreign bank accounts exceeded US$10,000 at any point during the previous year, even for one day.</p>
<p>Most recently, the 2010 <a href="https://www.irs.gov/businesses/corporations/foreign-account-tax-compliance-act-fatca">FATCA</a> legislation sought to crack down on tax evaders. But legislators sought to target only the estimated 50,000 so-called “fat cats” (many resident in the US) <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/12/business/whistle-blower-awarded-104-million-by-irs.html">hiding their fortunes</a> abroad, and not the millions of <a href="https://kar.kent.ac.uk/38298/">middle-class US citizens living overseas</a>. </p>
<p>FATCA requires both more extensive reporting by US citizens, and requires banks to report accounts or funds held by US citizens to the US government. And it has had substantial unintended consequences. Banks have <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/14/opinion/an-american-tax-nightmare.html">closed accounts</a> held by <a href="https://kar.kent.ac.uk/64528/">middle-class</a> US citizens, leading to financial precarity for some and struggles to save for retirement. A recent <a href="https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-180">US government study</a> finds that FATCA has shortcomings, and advises finding solutions.</p>
<h2>The average American abroad</h2>
<p><a href="http://country.eiu.com/article.aspx?articleid=34564387&Country=Eritrea&topic=Economy&subtopic=Forecast&subsubtopic=External+sector">Eritrea</a> is the only other country to tax its citizens living abroad on worldwide income. This is a fact frequently drawn on in advocacy efforts undertaken by overseas American organisations, such as <a href="https://www.americansabroad.org">American Citizens Abroad</a> (ACA), which lobby for a shift to a residence-based system of taxation. A <a href="https://www.americansabroad.org/tax-fairness-act-rbt/">bill</a> which would do so is due to be reintroduced in Congress this year.</p>
<p>Baby Sussex will likely have the royal family’s accountants to handle the paperwork. But the vast majority of the other 180,000 US citizens in Britain do not have family accountants to help them. My <a href="https://kar.kent.ac.uk/41083/">research shows</a> they are largely middle class, and, although most have achieved at least an undergraduate university education, they do not match the wealthy stereotype often associated with Americans abroad.</p>
<p>These Americans are primarily married to non-US citizens and have lived abroad for varying lengths of time, many for 20 years or more. While some Americans are <a href="https://theconversation.com/whats-the-difference-between-a-migrant-and-an-expat-69265">“expats”</a>, seconded by their employers to posts abroad, the majority <a href="https://theconversation.com/whats-the-difference-between-a-migrant-and-an-expat-69265">migrate of their own accord</a>. Like other migrants, they integrate to varying degrees, but often remain <a href="https://kar.kent.ac.uk/44893/">in touch</a> with the US and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/04/smarter-living/how-to-vote-abroad-overseas-expat.html">vote</a> in US elections.</p>
<p>While their lives in Paris, London or Rome may seem glamorous to those in the US, the reality for most is a daily routine remarkably similar to that of middle-class Europeans – just one complicated by the <a href="https://www.aaro.org/position-papers-2017/taxation-and-financial-reporting">additional financial reporting</a> mechanisms required by US authorities. </p>
<h2>Reason to renounce citizenship</h2>
<p>If this is such a challenge, some may ask, why don’t these Americans just renounce their US citizenship? Aside from the emotional ties mentioned by many in my research, many will not be eligible for <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42169602">citizenship of the countries they are resident in</a>, and children have to <a href="https://fam.state.gov/fam/07fam/07fam1290.html#M1290">wait until they turn 18 to renounce</a> their citizenship.</p>
<p>But the increased reporting requirements of FATCA and its repercussions are seen as having a significant impact on the increase of citizenship renunciations – from 226 in 2008 to 5,411 in 2016, a substantial increase but still a small percentage of all overseas Americans. <a href="https://kar.kent.ac.uk/64528/">My research</a> shows that key factors were the complexity of filing, as well as feelings of <a href="https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/americans-abroad-disillusioned-diaspora">disillusionment</a>. One US woman living in the UK, whose annual household income was between US$50,000 and US$99,000, told me:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>My 2011 US tax return ran to nearly 100 pages (although I am neither wealthy, nor a business owner, nor even employed, nor do I have any rental property income) … the bottom line of my US tax return was that I owed US$0 in tax. The cost to me of reaching this conclusion had been huge.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Another woman, living in France and working as an artist, echoed the concerns about complexity expressed by others:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I renounced because the ever-more complicated tax filing obligations cost me stress and money and we can’t afford an international tax pro. I never owed any tax to the US, since when I was working I didn’t make enough.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Numerous surveys show that personal <a href="https://www.usvotefoundation.org/sites/default/files/OVF_2009_PostElectionSurvey_Report.pdf">relationships</a> remain the primary reason for emigrating from the US and <a href="https://kar.kent.ac.uk/38298/">for remaining abroad</a>. This woman’s story was fairly typical:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I met my husband, he was settled here [in France] with a job he liked, I decided to stay. Basically it’s the same process that happens when you meet and marry someone from another (US) state.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Indeed, most overseas Americans are middle class people, who often moved to be with a partner and whose lives are disproportionately negatively affected by their tax reporting requirements. High-profile cases such as the Duchess of Sussex (or <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/08/boris-johnson-renounces-us-citizenship-record-2016-uk-foreign-secretary">Boris Johnson</a>) are the exception, not the rule.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/116090/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Amanda Klekowski von Koppenfels does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Taxation is not the only financial burden for overseas Americans.Amanda Klekowski von Koppenfels, Senior Lecturer in Migration and Politics, University of KentLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.