* * *
The splits in society regarding Meghan and Harry’s decision to step down as senior royals were what made their decision so interesting. To those of us who had inside information as to what was really going on, it was fascinating to see how even well-placed people like the Canadian Prime Minister could rush in and get things gloriously wrong amidst this societal tangle of approval and disapproval. Harry and Meghan’s announcement, which had come like a bolt out of the blue and wrong-footed the Royal Family, contained so much layering that was perceived as being disrespectful or tactical, that only naive, unsophisticated or blinkered people could have read it and thought the cover revealed the contents of the book. Yet Meghan and Harry’s good friend Justin Trudeau made the comment that Canada would not only welcome them if they chose to move there, but would share the cost of their security with the British while they were in Canada.
The ensuing hue and cry from politicians and public alike made it clear that the Canadians did not want to pay anything for the privilege of having Meghan and Harry in their midst. Their rebuke of the Prime Minister’s generous offer was embarrassing, and some politicians went even further, stating that the Canadian monarchy works well because the royals only visit; they do not reside there.
This never used to be the case. Queen Victoria’s daughter Princess Louise and her husband the Marquis of Lorne, later 9th Duke of Argyll, lived in Canada while he was Governor General, and so did Queen Mary’s brother the Earl of Athlone and his wife Princess Alice of Albany, granddaughter of Queen Victoria. So too did the former Prince Alastair, 2nd Duke of Connaught, grandson of King Edward VII, who not only lived in Ottawa for three years while aide-de-camp to Lord Athlone, but froze to death when he fell out of an open window at Rideau Hall, the official residence of the Governor General, while drunk during the Second World War. But much had changed since Lord Athlone departed as Governor-General in 1946. The Canadians no longer wanted members of the Royal Family residing in Canada. In an editorial published in The Globe and Mail on the 13th January, 2020, this was spelt out clearly and extensively, ending with the following paragraphs:
‘….. Canada kept the monarchy, and a head of state we share with various Commonwealth countries. The head of state’s representatives here are the governor-general and the provincial lieutenant-governors, who perform essential duties from opening parliaments to deciding who gets a form of government in minority situations. They’re as close as Canada comes to having resident royalty, but they’re not royalty. Instead, they’re merely temporary avatars for a virtual monarch who remains permanently ensconced across the sea.
‘Furthermore, since the 1950s, governors-general have always been Canadians. Princes are not shipped over here when no useful duties can be found for them on the other side of the Atlantic.
‘The Sussexes are working out their own personal issues, and Canadians wish them the best of luck. Canada welcomes people of all faiths, nationalities and races, but if you’re a senior member of our Royal Family, this country cannot become your home.
‘The government should make that clear. There can be no Earl Sussex of Rosedale and no Prince Harry of Point Grey. Canada is not a halfway house for anyone looking to get out of Britain while remaining royal.’
This neatly encapsulated the view of many Canadians, while also going straight to the core of the dilemma. While the Canadians felt for Harry in his quest to move away from royal life, he was not welcome to do it in Canada. Although Meghan and Harry’s stepping back was huge news, and the reactions sufficiently mixed to allow each side room for manoeuvre, behind the scenes the family stepped in to contain the fallout to the monarchy and to eliminate the possibility of long term damage, even for the couple themselves. Harry and Meghan, of course, had no intention of residing permanently in Canada, but, being skilful tacticians who understood that their radical decamping from the United Kingdom would be more tolerable if their ultimate destination of California could be concealed beneath the fig leaf of a desire to reside in a Commonwealth country, they were still allowing everyone to suppose that they would end up in Canada. This had constitutional implications, but these were less than the public and press might have realised, because Harry is simply not high enough up the line of succession. At his most important he was merely the spare, and once William had his first child, he ceased being even that. By 2020, he was the fourth spare after the three Cambridge children. Nevertheless, he was still a member of the Royal Family, still beloved, and still someone whose conduct could damage the monarchy and potentially himself. Moreover, what he was allowed to do now would set precedents which could impact upon Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis of Cambridge, so it was important to get things right.
The Queen took matters into her own hands. Within the family, she has always had a secondary role to Prince Philip. However, where her function as Sovereign is concerned, she has consistently jealously guarded her turf, allowing no interference from any member of the family, including the forceful husband she otherwise deferred to, or the domineering mother from whose shadow she emerged only after the Queen Mother’s death in 2002 at nearly 102 years old.
For someone who was personally self-effacing, Elizabeth II as queen has always had an astonishing degree of certitude. Her Private Secretary the Hon. (later Sir) Martin (then Lord) Charteris was the first to comment upon this immediately following her accession at the age of twenty five. He noticed how sure-footed she became as soon as she had to fulfill the role of monarch. She had a genuine natural authority and absolute confidence, possibly emanating from the schooling she received in the role of monarch from her father King George VI and her grandmother Queen Mary.
The Queen put this regal assurance to good use as she conferred with the head of the family, Prince Philip, who by then resided full time at Wood Farm on the Sandringham Estate, having given up public life. Known within the family for his wisdom, practicality, humanity, and unflinchingly royal approach to duty, his viewpoint, according to a European royal was, ‘The most important thing was to not let things drag on.’ Decisions must be made, and made quickly, so a date was set for a meeting on Monday the 13th January between the Queen, Harry, and the two immediate monarchs-in-waiting, Charles and William. To ensure that decisions would have to be made in a short space of time, the Queen informed everyone that it had to conclude before teatime, which meant that it could not go on beyond 5pm.
I was informed by royal cousins that Prince Philip was appalled at the way in which Meghan and Harry had tried to bring pressure to bear to get their own way. He was happy not to participate in the meeting itself, and, having fortified the Queen with his support, was driven away from the big house by his great friend Penny, wife of his maternal uncle Dickie Mountbatten’s grandson Norton Knatchbull, 3rd Earl Mountbatten of Burma just before the meeting was due to start. Harry had arrived from Windsor early, hoping to meet with his grandmother beforehand to influence her, but it did not work. She remained unavailable until the appointed time, waiting until the Prince of Wales and William arrived.
Despite the Queen making it clear that she wanted an agreement before the meeting concluded, there was personal anguish all round. Charles was distraught that his efforts to include Meghan had come to naught and that Harry had thrown them all a curved ball, while William was equally distraught that the brother whom he had loved and protected all his life could be behaving in what he regarded as so foolhardy and destructive a manner. The Queen was disappointed that all the sterling possibilities the union had engendered throughout the Commonwealth might come to nought, and that the warmth, generosity and hospitality the family and public had shown to Meghan had meant so little. Harry himself felt that he was not being supported enough and was upset when it became apparent that he and Meghan would not be able to trip off to North America, cut deals left right and centre, trip back over to Britain for a few photo ops which would keep their earning potential topped up, and generally just do as they pleased. Insofar as their well laid plans to
exploit their royal positions were concerned, he was made aware that there would be a trial period of a year’s duration. ‘A lot can happen in a year,’ a European prince said. ‘By not coming to a definitive agreement, the family was buying time, allowing the Sussexes to feel the breath on their necks which would hopefully encourage them to strike only acceptable deals. Remember, Meghan is a businesswoman. The great fear is that she loves money so much she’ll sacrifice reason for profit and in doing so involve herself and the monarchy in controversy.”
Aside from putting the couple on a probationary period, the family made it clear to Harry that he and Meghan would not be calling the shots as to what they could, and could not, do regarding their royal patronages, the way he and Meghan had suggested in their initial posting. He was informed that he would have to give up his links with the Army. This was a big blow to him, for ‘he had really envisaged popping back, hunkering down with the men, enjoying the camaraderie which had been one of the high points of his life, then breezing back to America, hopefully on a friend’s private plane, to cut more deals while Meghan increased the family fortune, whether to become President of the United States or just an ordinary billionairess was beside the point,’ one of his cousins explained. He had not calculated on being forced to stand down from being Captain General of the Royal Marines, a position he had inherited from his grandfather Prince Philip and valued greatly; Honorary Air Commandant, RAF Honington; or Commodore-in-Chief, Small Ships and Diving, Royal Naval Command. The loss of these really hurt, as he would confess a few nights later when he gave a speech at the Chelsea Ivy on behalf of Sentebale, the charity he founded which supports the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people affected by HIV in Lesotho and Botswana. He had also not lost patronage of the Invictus Games foundation, which he had also founded. Nevertheless, the only really meaningful patronages he and Meghan would be allowed to keep would be President and Vice-President of the Queen’s Commonwealth Trust, something which was within her personal gift and she could police easily. She also hoped this would leave the channels open for greater cooperation in the future. The Queen genuinely loves the Commonwealth, as everyone close to her knows, so by allowing Harry and Meghan to keep those patronages she was playing to them on many levels.
Last but not least, Harry and Meghan were also made to forgo using their Royal Highness titles. Although they were not stripped of them, by banning them from using those honorifics after they officially stepped down as royals on the 31st March 2020, the Queen, Prince Charles and Prince William were delivering a clear message: You can’t be both in and out. It’s either/or. This was yet another subtle way of exerting some control over the headstrong couple. If they behaved decorously, no more would be said of further demotions, but the implied threat was obvious: Cross the line and you might end up losing your royal rank altogether.
Although it is unlikely that Meghan and quite possibly Harry will have known that there was a precedent for royals being prevented from using their royal titles, in 1917 Her Highness Princess Maud, Countess of Southesk was ordered by her uncle, King George V, to cease using the style and title of princess, with which her grandfather King Edward VII had endowed her in 1905. Thereafter, she was known by her married name, Lady Southesk. Although she remained a highness and princess, and enjoyed precedence immediately after those members of her family who were royal highnesses, and although her coronation robes were those of a royal princess and not a countess, she was referred to even in the Court Circular by her aristocratic dignities alone. Had she persisted in using her royal titles, King George V would have stripped her of them.
Because Harry and Meghan are now in a similarly anomalous position, and no one yet knew whether Meghan would turn out to be as much of a maverick commercially and politically as some feared she could be, both doors were being kept open. If she and Harry respected the boundaries behind which royals must function commercially and politically, they would be allowed to keep their royal status. If they deviated from the high standards required, they could be deprived of it.
This was not an empty threat, and constitutionalists who argue that Parliament would have to vote to strip Harry of his royal status are wrong. Although peerages cannot be withdrawn except by an Act of Parliament, King George V with one stroke of the pen in Letters Patent dated 20th November 1917 deprived a whole host of his royal relations of their royal status. These included King Edward VII’s grandson Prince Alistair of Connaught who became Lord Macduff; Queen Mary’s brothers Princes Adolphus and Alexander of Teck who became the Marquis of Cambridge and Earl of Athlone respectively, while their heirs Princes George and Rupert were demoted to Earl of Eltham and Viscount Trematon with all the other children mere courtesy lords and ladies; and the Battenberg princes Henry and Louis, whose marriages to Queen Victoria’s daughter Beatrice and granddaughter Victoria did not prevent them from becoming the Marquises of Carisbrooke and Milford Haven, while all their little princes and princesses became mere lords and ladies. The Queen might not be able to strip Harry of his dukedom without proceeding through Parliament, but she could certainly strip him of his royal status with the ease that her grandfather had shorn those just mentioned.
A friend of Harry and Meghan’s told me that neither of them understood the weakness of their position at the time they made these moves. Once they became alert to the dangers, Meghan showed her mettle by trying to brazen things out. She declared that people would consider them royal whether or not they remained highnesses. To an extent, she was right. In America, people have a different concept of what it means to be a member of the Royal Family. As long as you are related to them, you’re regarded as being royal. Even in Britain people do not appreciate how narrowly defined the Royal Family is. Princess Margaret’s son and daughter are often called royal, as are Princess Anne’s children. In reality, none of them is royal. The Royal Family is in essence limited to the monarch, his or her children, and all grandchildren in the male line. Latitude is extended to the children of the children of the heirs into the third generation, hence why the Cambridge children are royal, but no legitimate child of Harry’s is a member of the Royal Family until such time as his father ascends to the throne. But Meghan and Harry are members of the Royal Family, and even though they have been demoted by having usage of their Royal Highness titles denied to them, they will continue to be royal, albeit semi-detached, unless their royal status is removed from them.
Remote as that possibility seems, it is not beyond comprehension. If they should become caught up in a scandal like the Infanta Cristina and her husband, they might well find themselves stripped of their royal status the way Cristina and Iñaki Urdangarin were stripped of their ducal titles. The British monarchy has proven itself to be amazingly resourceful and inventive when it is in its interest to lay down new precedents. So it is not beyond the realms of possibility that Harry could find himself ceasing to be a royal highness. It’s doubtful that people would then still consider them royal, but even if they did, the level of kudos would be infinitely inferior to that of a royal dukedom.
All this, of course, may seem far-fetched, but then so was the extra-legal ruling which prevented the Duchess of Windsor from being styled Her Royal Highness, or the invention by which Prince Edward’s children, who by right are lawfully His Royal Highness Prince James of Wessex and Her Royal Highness Princess Louise of Wessex, became known as Viscount Severn and Lady Louise Windsor.
The royal world is subtle. It issues shots across the bow before it sends in the fire ships. The most contentious of all the Sussexes’ plans as they sought to paddle their canoe beyond the safe harbour of British royal life into the rough seas of Americana was their registration of trademarks for their Sussex Royal brand. The incredibly wide net they cast when they registered over a hundred items ranging from the purely commercial to the purely charitable, with unhealthy mixes of both in a discomfiting number of the items, set alarm bells ringing at the palace. Meghan and Harry were warned by the Garter King of Arms
, Thomas Woodcock, who told the Times, ‘I don’t think it’s satisfactory,’ when questioned about their declared intention to continue using the word royal in their brand. Of course, they had gone to a great deal of trouble and expense to trademark the items they intended to exploit commercially, and Meghan would not have been a capable businesswoman if she hadn’t tried to hang onto the brand she had already spent so much time, trouble and money creating. It was inevitable, nevertheless, that they would be prevented from marketing themselves as royal, for the word is a restricted one, and, by making the announcement that he did, Garter was in effect shutting them down, which of course subsequently happened.
That this anomaly arose at all shows how genuinely naive Meghan and Harry were, or how brazen, depending on your perspective. They could easily have trademarked something else - their names, their initials, anything beneath the ducal coronet such as the obscure Archewell which they have subsequently come up with - and not fallen foul of the law. But in presuming that they could simply exploit Sussex Royal they showed, at the very least, how ignorant they both were of even the most basic elements of English society, or then how confident they were that they would prevail over both precedence and the law.
Meghan and Harry Page 39