Anglophilia has always been a strange interest in my family. My parents are deeply devoted to the BBC, and there’s always a British drama on the “telly” on a Friday night. Our taste for teas only favor the absolute darkest Yorkshire Gold, and my father records every Premier League game the on cable. My brother celebrated his bar mitzvah with a Chelsea reception theme. My mother has a china cabinet solely for her British tea cup collection. The first year of my life was spent in London as a sort of “trial run” to see if my family could live comfortably across the pond.
There’s one thing the British Invasion never infected my family with, though— an undying love for the Royal Family. Don’t get me wrong, I love the historical aspect — the costumes, the art, the jewels, the palaces — but the existence of monarchy in modern life is just something I can’t understand. Take a look at a picture of the royals at any public event. They’re robotically stiff, as if they’re not even human. Their smiles too saccharine. Too poised. Too perfect.
I’m a believer that the Royal Family should step out of the spotlight and live their lives as any other British citizen. No motorcade, no state balls, and no televised $45 million dollar weddings. However, 62% of British adults believe the monarchy should be kept, and I can’t discount the financial contributions the Crown makes to the U.K. $2.7 billion is pumped into the economy annually via the monarchy, mostly through tourism. So here’s another suggestion, only reinforced by Oprah’s recent interview of Meghan Markle and Prince Harry. The segment has highlighted to the rest of the world the strange phenomenon that is the Royal Family and why it’s high time that the Crown undergo some major changes.
The interview especially exposed the toxicity of being a royal and how poorly press is handled. The Royal Family gains much of their influence through constantly being featured on the cover of various tabloid press outlets. It’s clear to see that media hounds every aspect of the monarchy’s life—from the clothes that they wear, their home residences, and even the birth of their children. However, it isn’t without the copious slander and gossip in these articles that is so detrimental to members, especially those not of royal blood. In an effort to save the reputations of the family, but also stir up some attention, stories are twisted in press releases and the institution accepts their tie-in with the media as just part of the role. A Guardian analysis revealed that Meghan’s media coverage is 43% negative, while her sister-in-law Kate, Duchess of Cambridge, only falls victim to bad press 8% of the time. The Royal Family being complacent in their coverage is a dangerous game to play. Let’s look at history: Princess Diana was literally chased to her death in a bid to flee the press. History repeats itself; Meghan had to strip herself of her title and leave the country to finally receive the protection and resources she needed. If the institution refuses to communicate with press this harassment could end.
A pivotal point in the interview, the prompting of Oprah’s “Were you silent? Or silenced?” question uncovered that it wasn’t until Meghan and her husband broke all formal ties with the royal family that she was able to comment on how manipulative and silencing the institution is. How she even thought of suicide, and yet her pleas to be allowed outside fell onto deaf ears. Meghan claims she only left her home twice in the span of four months.
And then there was the most disturbing part of the entire interview — the blatant colorism that the royal family holds. We’re living in a moment where race is finally being discussed, where voices of color worldwide are starting to receive the attention they so rightfully deserve. How can we continue to support the image the royals promote after Meghan expressed that a family member was afraid that her and Harry’s child may be “too dark”? Their son, a great-grandchild of the queen, was stripped of a title and protection because of a concern over how a biracial child may look in the public eye.
A mixed-race heir could have been the change that this stale institution needed. Their child gaining their birthright of a prince title could have shown the world that anyone born into the family, no matter their race, is worthy of the British crown. Clearly this isn’t the case. Forty-seven out of the 53 Commonwealth states are populated by a majority of non-white citizens. What sort of message does barring a child of color from a royal title send to the Commonwealth’s own people?
How can we continue to get excited about a family making public appearances when they suppress anything “taboo”? The royals need to rethink what being public figures in 2021 means. They should be setting an example for the rest of the Commonwealth. And not by being cookie-cutter family either; but by modernizing to fit a world where mental health should be talked about more, where Black is beautiful, and communication is welcomed.
As the institution is probably in a crisis mode of reputational management, I hope the blatant shortcomings of their duty as figureheads come to mind. That they can take a step back and see the effects of a group that doesn’t advocate for or protect its own members. That they can take a look of their posh, silver spoon upbringings and recognize that their own subjects are starting to question why they’re venerated in the first place.
Hannah Sammut 