Ruthless or reasonable? Queen’s ban on the use of ‘royal’ by Meghan and Harry

OPINION:

Sandringham, the queen’s 8,094ha Norfolk estate, might be a massive Georgian pile, but in some circles it is considered one of the most gruesome outposts in the Windsors.

(It is said that the queen’s aunt, Princess Alice, once asked her, “Do you want to burn down the house for yourself? I’m ready to do it. Would you mind?” Her Majesty apparently replied, “I’m not sure if I should care. “)

Which is perhaps fitting that January 13 of this year was the setting for one of the ugliest episodes in modern royal history.

That Monday was the day of the so-called Sandringham Summit, which brought together the Queen, Prince Charles, Prince William and Prince Harry in the wake of the explosive announcement by Harry and his wife Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, days before they wanted get out of real work life. .

In the hours, weeks and months since then, alleged details about the confrontation leaked to the press: Prince Philip left the “big house” and returned to Wood Farm, his cabin on the Sandringham Estate before Harry arrived; Harry arrived hours early and had a private lunch with the Queen beforehand and it was speculated that “William was so furious with his younger brother that he would not be able to bear the hypocrisy of smiling at him during lunch.”

Now, Battle of Brothers, a new biography of esteemed royal biographer Robert Lacey has painted a far more scathing picture of what was going on within the palace walls that Monday and during the course of subsequent negotiations.

When 2020 dawned, Harry and Meghan were a long, long way from London, reaching the end of their six-week gap year in Canada. They had gone undetected by the press for weeks before news broke that the Sussexes were hiding in a $ 20 million waterfront mansion on Vancouver Island. Indicate the expected madness of the paparazzi.

At the time, Harry and Meghan had warned both the queen and Carlos that, after a tumultuous year, the couple were seeking some kind of change in their official roles. However, when Harry pressured Her Majesty’s team for a date, they volunteered on January 29.

According to Lacey, when the Sussexes landed in London on January 6 they were “furious”.

Another biography, Finding Freedom, also claimed that such was their frustration with the proposed long wait, they even considered driving directly from the airport to Sandringham to speak with the nonagenarian monarch.

Interestingly, Lacey reports that at this point the couple had already begun to think about the logistics of their departure, including who would finance their new life.

He writes that at this stage: “Their American managers had been confident that the couple could charge substantial speaking fees in the United States and Canada. Agent Nick Collins was negotiating contracts worth hundreds of thousands of dollars per appearance.”

Fast-forward to January 8, a day indelibly marked in real history.

There are several hints as to why Harry and Meghan so hastily removed their sensational ad. In Lacey’s account, in the run-up to it, they were concerned that the media would find out about their plans, a concern that was reinforced when The Sun ran a story on its cover on January 8 with the headline “We Are Orf Again.” about the fact that they would only stay briefly in Britain.

That night at 6.30pm London time, Harry and Meghan hit the button and told the world that they wanted to stop being members of the royal family who were working full time.

The news shook the palace.

The authors of Lacey and Freedom, Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand, have reported that the impressive news took the royal family by surprise. In Brothers, Lacey writes that the move left the Queen and Philip “devastated,” while Scobie and Durand say the move “shocked” Her Majesty.

Five days later, His Majesty convened the now infamous “Sandringham Summit” and after a 90-minute family discussion, the die was cast. Harry and Meghan would resign entirely as working members of the royal family.

That afternoon, Buckingham Palace issued two statements, one describing the Sussexes’ “divorce” agreement, which included that the couple “can no longer formally represent the Queen” and another a very unusual personal letter from the Queen in The one in which she avoided the traditional use of titles, saying, “Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be very dear members of my family. I recognize the challenges they have experienced as a result of intense scrutiny over the past two years and support their desire for a more independent life. “

What’s interesting about Brothers is that Lacey reports that for four days later, representatives of the various royal parties were behind closed doors hammering out the cold, hard, and practical details of Sussex’s departure.

On the Duke and Duchess, Lacey quotes a senior palace source familiar with the negotiations as saying “it was like dealing with a hard-nosed Hollywood lawyer.”

“They were completely wrong in the negotiations, but so did the palace. The tragedy was that the Queen’s larger goal was actually to bring everyone together, not separate them.”

In the wash, the couple would gain their freedom, however they would have to lose their right to wear their style as His Royal Highness and the Duke would renounce his honorary military roles.

Of the January maneuvers, Lacey writes: “At first glance, Rachel Zane [Meghan’s] Harsh tactics had failed disastrously. The Sussexes could still call themselves ‘Duke and Duchess’ if they wished and had the right to continue living in Canada as they were on that date, but not much longer.

“It’s no wonder that when Harry was offered the chance to review the entire arrangement after 12 months, his first impulse was to refuse. He didn’t want to have any more relations with the royal family.”

The following month, on February 18, the Queen struck another blow by ruling that the errant duo could not wear the Sussex Royal brand. Per Lacey: “Those in the know also said that the couple’s erratic and impulsive behavior over the past year had not inclined Queen Elizabeth II to entrust the Sussexes with the use of the word ‘royal’ anytime soon” .

Speaking to Vanity Fair, Lacey said of the move: “At the end of the day, we saw cruelty from the queen for her outright refusal to allow the Sussexes to use the royal word.”

What’s interesting here is that this image of Her Majesty as a hard-nosed negotiator contrasts with her public persona as an inscrutable matriarch of vivid hues, hat firmly in place, Launer’s purse nestled in the crook of her arm.

Here’s the thing: Judging solely from the footage of her and her television broadcasts, it seems like some kind of benign masterful presence. That is to say, hardly a fearsome and inflexible opponent.

So, on some level, it is difficult to reconcile that impression with that of an inflexible and fierce opponent.

And that, in turn, goes to the very heart of the existential dilemma that he has faced throughout his 68-year reign and that Charles and William will also have to juggle for years to come. That is, having to decide when to walk into a room to make a tough decision whether you’re there as a mother, grandmother, or great-grandmother, or as the head of a multi-billion dollar suite with a global brand footprint.

To be sovereign is to be a kind of CEO, ultimately responsible for the survival and longevity of an institution whose history dates back to the 9th century. That stewardship clearly requires her to put duty before personal feelings.

Looking at the queen’s decision to deny Harry and Meghan the opportunity to mark themselves as royalty, it could be interpreted as a punitive advantage, a biting public punishment for daring to defeat the status quo and go their own way.

However, I would not agree.

Look at Her Majesty’s life and time and time again you have put your obligation to protect the Crown ahead of your family. In 1952, he refused to give his sister, Princess Margaret, permission to marry the group’s divorced captain Peter Townsend.

After her coronation in 1953, the new queen made the decision to go on a six-month tour of the Commonwealth, even though it meant leaving her young son and daughter in the UK.

Looking back at the Queen and the way she and the palace have handled the Sussex mess, what is evident is that she is willing to make the tough decisions when necessary. Her great-grandchildren might call her Gan Gan and she might seem like a kind nanna whose purse is full of mints, but this is a woman who innately understands that she has a job to do, regardless of the emotional sacrifice required.

So far, it seems that losing the ability to present themselves as royalty has not affected Harry and Meghan’s moneymaking potential. In September, it was revealed that they had signed a “megawatt” deal with Netflix to produce content for the streaming giant, a move that was reportedly worth up to $ 130 million.

On a personal level, it’s hard not to wonder whether no longer being able to use the Sussex Royal moniker could have hurt the couple.

On Thursday, the homepage of Harry and Meghan’s new charity Archewell was unveiled, revealing a neutral palette and vaguely pretentious tone, with the expectation that they will fully debut their new United States-based charity. United next year.

Nine months after the Sandringham Summit, it is fair to say that no one finally won. Without their HRHs and “real” imprimatur, they continue to build their American brand, one high-profile Zoom conversation after another.

Meanwhile, in the UK, the palace has lost not only its two most dynamic and charismatic stars, but also the extra hands that would have been incredibly helpful during the pandemic.

However, if there is one clear lesson that has emerged over the course of 2020, it is this: don’t mess with His Majesty.