You are currently browsing the daily archive for January 17, 2020.
As I close a week discussing Disroyalty starring the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, here are a few more views about their plans as well as a summary of what went on at Sandringham on Monday, January 13, 2020.
Before I get to those, however, it is important to remember that other Royals will have to pick up the Sussexes’ slack, leaving 200 engagements per year to divide among them.
Key points about the Sandringham summit
Here’s what to know about the Sandringham summit on Monday.
The Daily Mail says that Harry arrived at 11:20 a.m.
By then, Prince Philip had already left and was driven elsewhere on the estate. He was reportedly furious last week:
Philip was reportedly ‘spitting blood’ with anger when he found out last Wednesday and yelled at his aides: ‘What the hell are they playing at?’
If he left, he wasn’t feeling any calmer.
Prince Charles had arrived the day before. Prince William showed up 15 minutes before the meeting began at 2:00 p.m.
The meeting was held in the Long Library, which used to be a bowling alley. Princes William and Harry spent much time there as children.
It is located away from other rooms where the Royals might have been overheard.
Meanwhile, the Home Secretary, Priti Patel, denied charges of racism (same link):
Ms Patel, speaking to BBC Radio 5 Live, said: ‘I’m not in that category at all where I believe there’s racism at all.
‘I think we live in a great country, a great society, full of opportunity, where people of any background can get on in life.’
Asked if the media had been in any way racist, she replied: ‘I don’t think so, no… I certainly haven’t seen that through any debates or commentary or things of that nature.’
On January 14, the Mail reported that Prime Minister Boris Johnson wisely refused to be drawn in on the controversy:
In his first major TV interview since the election, Mr Johnson said: ‘I am a massive fan of the Queen and of the Royal Family…
‘I am absolutely confident that they are going to sort this out.’
I was happy to read that Harry’s early arrival ensured that he could have a lengthy one-on-one conversation with his grandmother.
Bolter
In 2018, a few months before Prince Harry and Meghan Markle got married, Germaine Greer gave an interview to Australia’s 60 Minutes in which she said she thought the bride would end up leaving.
The Cut posted the story on April 16. Prescient (emphases mine):
During an interview with 60 Minutes Australia this weekend, outspoken and controversial feminist author Germaine Greer said she thinks Markle “will bolt” as soon as she gets a sense of what life in the British royal family (which Greer refers to as “the firm”) is really like.
“Let’s hope they’re in love. If they’re not it’s going to be totally unbearable,” Greer told journalist Tara Brown. “She will see vistas of boredom that are unbelievable. I think the pressure to escape from the firm is crushing.”
When Brown asked what she predicted for the couple’s future, Greer answered, “I think she’ll bolt.”
“She bolted before. She was out the door,” she said, referring to Markle’s 2013 divorce from Trevor Engelson. “I think she’ll bolt. I hope in a way that she’ll bolt but maybe she’ll take Harry with her.”
When asked why Markle, already a successful television star, would give up her career to marry into the royal family, Greer quipped: “Why would a girl born in poverty marry a man with 53 million quid? I can’t think of single reason.”
It seems Harry might be worth less than that — possibly £30m, but the point stands.
There is also the status involved.
Opportunism
The deputy political editor at the Daily Mail, John Stevens, had this to say about the Sussexes’ announcement last week:
https://twitter.com/MadPdavid/status/1215031742085713922
In fact, that is quite possible.
Allegedly, Justin Trudeau knew of their plans before the Queen and the rest of the Royal Family. So did Elton John.
On January 11, the Daily Mail reported:
There was speculation last night that Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau may have given a cryptic Twitter clue about the crisis that was about to engulf the Royal Family.
When news emerged that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex had turned their back on Royal tradition and flown to Canada for Christmas, their powerful friend was one of the first to welcome them on social media.
He wrote: ‘You’re among friends, and always welcome here.’
Just weeks later, the Royal couple were looking to test that ‘always’ by announcing their move to Canada.
And the tweet has done little to dampen gossip in Embassy circles that Mr Trudeau was more aware of the Sussexes’ emigration plans than even their closest family.
Diplomatic sources claim Mr Trudeau and his wife Sophie were consulted about the decision late last year, before members of the Royal family and even the Queen.
The Trudeaus are friends with the Sussexes:
Last night, the Canadian government did not respond when confronted about the claims, but sources close to the Sussexes denied they had discussed the move with Prime Minister Trudeau.
The Canadian First Couple and the Sussexes have been close friends, with Meghan and Sophie even sharing a stylist – Meghan’s best friend and sometime babysitter for Archie, Jessica Mulroney.
Prince Harry, 35, and Mr Trudeau, 48, are two of the younger fixtures on the world stage, with both men appearing to enjoy each other’s company at events such as Commonwealth commemorations.
The two have also encountered each other on multiple occasions through Prince Harry’s Invictus Games for disabled servicemen.
I wonder if the Sussexes are aware that, many years ago, Trudeau once attended a fancy dress party in blackface. He thought nothing of it at the time. Terrible.
Returning to John Stevens’s tweet, here are a few responses:
Money
Although, technically, what Prince Charles does with his income from the Duchy of Cornwall is his business, the British would be annoyed if he continued to finance Prince Harry:
This YouGov poll shows similar results:
This Briton tweeted about the video of Harry touting Meghan to Disney’s Bob Iver for voiceover work:
Naturally, some of the money she would earn from such work would go to charity. Of course:
Trudeau said that his country will pay for the Sussexes’ security detail. Canadians won’t be too happy about that:
https://twitter.com/lisa_Duignan/status/1216851188697702400
Another Daily Mail report said that Canada would pay half the Sussexes’ £1m annual security detail cost. We shall see. On January 14, the Mail published an article quoting Trudeau, who said:
I think most Canadians are very supportive of having royals be here, but how that looks and what kind of costs are involved, there are still lots of discussions to have.
Family
The young Anglican priest who tweeted the following has mistakenly said that the Sussexes are on the Civil List. They are not.
However, the larger point about their role in the Royal Family is what is important:
https://twitter.com/FrPhilipMurray/status/1214991491363483649
https://twitter.com/FrPhilipMurray/status/1215033627165253633
The Revd Giles Fraser, formerly Canon at St Paul’s Cathedral and now Rector of St Mary, Newington in South London, wrote a considered article on the topic that the Revd Philip Murray raised. The Bishop of Dorking (Surrey) complimented him on it:
Do we still recognise moral obligations that exist prior to our having chosen them? That is, it seems to me, the question embedded within the whole Megxit scandal. It couldn’t have been better designed to drive a wedge between two very different ways of seeing the world …
But this isn’t just about monarchy. For the same tension exists within the very idea of a family — the Windsors being, as well as royal, the most famous family in the world. How does liberalism — of which Meghan Markle feels like a supreme representative — deal with that age-old sense of moral obligation towards those who have brought you into life and have raised and nurtured you, without you having chosen them for the task. Of course, some families fail in this very basic duty. And most of us parents only get it half right, at best.
Without this very basic idea that we are born into some fundamental unit of existential solidarity, something towards which we owe an allegiance long before we are able to choose it, human life is released from its moorings and we are all deeply lost. This is where liberalism flounders. For when it comes to the most important basis of human flourishing, family life, liberalism has nothing useful to say, other than to remind us that some families are destructive and dysfunctional and best escaped from. Be your own person, it advises. Break free. But this is to cut off the branch on which nests are built.
Sense of duty
A Theology graduate from Cambridge University has the ultimate analysis of the Duchess and her outlook on a sense of duty.
This is a must-read:
So true — especially the closing thought about helping minority Britons!
When they got married, I thought she might look forward to such a role. I was wrong.
Poll on the monarchy
Between Thursday and Friday, January 9 and 10, Deltapoll conducted a survey on the monarchy. This was after the Sussexes’ announcement.
The favourable results were lower than I’d expected:
https://twitter.com/ProperDemocrat/status/1217365236371509248
A Pole responded to that tweet, encouraging us to keep the Royal Family:
Good or bad? It’s important. I come originally from Poland. I read Polish papers and #British monarchy issues make front page headlines there. The monarchy is #Britain‘s trademark, as it were, recognised worldwide. Try and lose it to see how good it actually is to have it.
I fully agree.
This is a breakdown of the question by age group:
I also agree with these replies:
I do not think that most of our Prime Ministers would have made great Presidents.
The Royal Family are good for Britain. Let’s not discard them because of the actions of a few bad apples.
Churchmouse Campanologist 