Royal Fallout

Jim McMahon

It was the Instagram post that shocked the world. In January, Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan Markle, announced that they wanted to “step back” from their royal duties. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, as they’re also known, had a new baby and were growing weary of the intense and sometimes hateful coverage from Britain’s tabloid press. They declared that they’d split their time between the United Kingdom and North America while working to become financially independent.

“After many months of reflection and internal discussions,” their post read, “we have chosen to make a transition this year in starting to carve out a progressive new role within this institution.”

The ensuing drama, dubbed “Megxit” by British tabloids, plunged the monarchy into perhaps its greatest crisis since the 1997 death of Princess Diana, the mother of Harry and his older brother, Prince William. After a few days of tense negotiations with the royal family, Harry and Meghan were essentially forced to step down rather than step back. In order to break away, the couple agreed to give up state funds, stop using their “Royal Highness” titles, and pay back $3 million in taxpayer money that was used to renovate their house last year.

All the controversy brought renewed attention to the fact that the monarchy is an ancient institution struggling to stay relevant in the modern world.

“Britain is in the process of deep soul-searching right now,” says Arianne Chernock, a professor of British history at Boston University. “There’s lots of self-reflection about what it means to be British . . . and the monarchy is one of the few institutions left that symbolizes tradition and continuity. I think many people cling to it for those reasons.”

It was the Instagram post that shocked the world. In January, Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan Markle, announced that they wanted to “step back” from their royal duties. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, as they’re also known, had a new baby. As a result, they were growing weary of the intense and sometimes hateful coverage from Britain’s tabloid press. They declared that they’d split their time between the United Kingdom and North America while working to become financially independent.

“After many months of reflection and internal discussions,” their post read, “we have chosen to make a transition this year in starting to carve out a progressive new role within this institution.”

The drama that followed their announcement was dubbed “Megxit” by British tabloids. The news plunged the monarchy into crisis. It’s perhaps the monarchy’s greatest crisis since the 1997 death of Princess Diana, the mother of Harry and his older brother, Prince William. After a few days of tense negotiations with the royal family, Harry and Meghan were essentially forced to step down rather than step back. In order to break away, the couple agreed to give up state funds and stop using their “Royal Highness” titles. They made an agreement to pay back $3 million in taxpayer money that was used to renovate their house last year.

All the controversy brought renewed attention to the fact that the monarchy is an ancient institution struggling to stay relevant in the modern world.

“Britain is in the process of deep soul-searching right now,” says Arianne Chernock, a professor of British history at Boston University. “There’s lots of self-reflection about what it means to be British . . . and the monarchy is one of the few institutions left that symbolizes tradition and continuity. I think many people cling to it for those reasons.”

There’s no precedent for Harry and Meghan’s situation, although other members of the royal family have scaled back their public duties in the past. Princess Diana lost her title in 1996 after divorcing Prince Charles. Prince Philip retired from public life in 2017 at age 96. And King Edward VIII gave up the throne in 1936 to marry a divorced American woman. (It used to be forbidden by the Church of England to marry a divorced person who had a living ex-spouse.)

Experts speculate that the negotiated terms may be more severe than the duke and duchess expected. But the queen did say she was “entirely supportive” of the couple, acknowledging that they have experienced “intense scrutiny” over the past two years. And after a year, if the deal isn’t working, the terms could be modified, officials say. It’s a sign that Britain’s monarchy is striving to be more open-minded in the 21st century; in the past, it wasn’t always so flexible.

Why does the monarchy still exist? The U.S. fought a revolution to escape a British king—but many countries find that royal families provide a sense of stability. The origins of Britain’s monarchy can be traced back to medieval times, and Queen Elizabeth II, the country’s longest-reigning sovereign, took the throne in 1952.

There’s no precedent for Harry and Meghan’s situation. But other members of the royal family have scaled back their public duties in the past. Princess Diana lost her title in 1996 after divorcing Prince Charles. Prince Philip retired from public life in 2017 at age 96. And King Edward VIII gave up the throne in 1936 to marry a divorced American woman. (It used to be forbidden by the Church of England to marry a divorced person who had a living ex-spouse.)

Experts speculate that the negotiated terms may be harsher than the duke and duchess expected. But the queen did say she was “entirely supportive” of the couple. She acknowledged that they have experienced “intense scrutiny” over the past two years. And after a year, if the deal isn’t working, the terms could be modified, officials say. It’s a sign that Britain’s monarchy is trying to be more open-minded in the 21st century. In the past, it wasn’t always so flexible.

Why does the monarchy still exist? The U.S. fought a revolution to escape a British king. But many countries find that royal families provide a sense of stability. The origins of Britain’s monarchy can be traced back to medieval times. Queen Elizabeth II, the country’s longest-reigning sovereign, took the throne in 1952.

These days, the queen is largely a symbolic figure. She serves as head of state for the U.K. and 15 other countries in the British Commonwealth but has to remain neutral when it comes to politics. (The prime minister, chosen by Parliament, runs Britain’s government.) However, the queen does lead the ceremonial opening of Parliament each year, and she meets with the prime minister regularly. Members of the royal family often support the queen by making appearances at public and charitable events.

Over the course of Queen Elizabeth’s 68-year reign, 14 different prime ministers have come to power. Her constant presence makes her a touchstone compared with the ever-changing politicians of Parliament, especially in the era of Brexit, says Chernock.

Although the royal family is known for its old-fashioned protocols, it has been trying to modernize for a long time. In 1840, for example, Queen Victoria made her wedding a public event so her subjects could join in the celebrations.

“Over decades and centuries, the royal family has been trying to figure out how to explain and justify this archaic institution within a modern democratic political framework,” says Chernock. “The fact that the royal family in Britain still exists is a testament to some of their success.”

These days, the queen is largely a symbolic figure. She serves as head of state for the U.K. and 15 other countries in the British Commonwealth. She has to remain neutral when it comes to politics. The prime minister, chosen by Parliament, runs Britain’s government. But the queen does lead the ceremonial opening of Parliament each year. She also meets with the prime minister regularly. Members of the royal family often support the queen by making appearances at public and charitable events.

Over the course of Queen Elizabeth’s 68-year reign, 14 different prime ministers have come to power. Her constant presence makes her a touchstone compared with the ever-changing politicians of Parliament, especially in the era of Brexit, says Chernock.

The royal family is known for its old-fashioned protocols. But it’s been trying to modernize for a long time. In 1840, for example, Queen Victoria made her wedding a public event so her subjects could join in the celebrations.

“Over decades and centuries, the royal family has been trying to figure out how to explain and justify this archaic institution within a modern democratic political framework,” says Chernock. “The fact that the royal family in Britain still exists is a testament to some of their success.”

Some politicians have tried to help. In 2013, for example, Parliament changed the succession rules; from now on boys will not be placed ahead of girls because of their gender.

Still, there have been missteps along the way. In an attempt to humanize the royal family, Queen Elizabeth allowed a documentary film crew into the palace in the late 1960s. They shot footage of Prince Philip grilling sausages and the queen making small talk with President Richard Nixon. The goal was to provide a taste of day-to-day life for the royals—but when the movie aired on TV, it opened the family up to criticism. Many believe it paved the way for the extreme scrutiny the royals receive today.

“It ended up being too much access,” Chernock says. “It kind of eroded the mystique of the monarchy.”

Though the British people still largely support the institution of the monarchy, some oppose funding it from taxes. The royal family points out that the contribution from taxpayers is equivalent to just £1 (roughly $1.30) per British person per year; on the flip side, others argue that’s still more than what countries without royals must pay.

Monarchies in other countries have also struggled with high costs, especially as income inequality has become a hot topic. Last year, the Swedish royal family streamlined its ranks; the king announced that five of his grandchildren would no longer bear titles, carry out royal duties, or be paid the sum royal family members receive each year. By cutting out some members, the focus is kept on those in the direct line of succession, and there’s less of a chance that the family will be criticized for using public funds.

Some politicians have tried to help. In 2013, for example, Parliament changed the succession rules. As a result, boys aren’t placed ahead of girls because of their gender.

Still, there have been missteps along the way. Queen Elizabeth allowed a documentary film crew into the palace in the late 1960s. It was an attempt to humanize the royal family. The crew shot footage of Prince Philip grilling sausages and the queen making small talk with President Richard Nixon. The goal was to provide a taste of day-to-day life for the royals. But when the movie aired on TV, it opened the family up to criticism. Many believe it paved the way for the extreme scrutiny the royals receive today.

“It ended up being too much access,” Chernock says. “It kind of eroded the mystique of the monarchy.”

The British people still largely support the institution of the monarchy. But some oppose funding it from taxes. The royal family points out that the contribution from taxpayers is equivalent to just £1 (roughly $1.30) per British person per year. On the flip side, others argue that’s still more than what countries without royals must pay.

Monarchies in other countries have also struggled with high costs. And things have become more difficult as income inequality has become a hot topic. Last year, the Swedish royal family streamlined its ranks. The king announced that five of his grandchildren would no longer bear titles or carry out royal duties, or be paid the sum royal family members receive each year. By cutting out some members, the focus is kept on those in the direct line of succession. The move also means there’s less of a chance that the family will be criticized for using public funds.

When Harry and Meghan wed in 2018, they were considered the future of the royal family. Meghan, a biracial American actress who is divorced, seemed destined to shake things up.

“Meghan represented change because of her racial heritage but also because of her feminism, her activism, and the fact that she is self-made, with strong ideas about her autonomy and identity,” says Afua Hirsch, author of Brit(ish): On Race, Identity and Belonging.

But then came reports that Meghan was miserable, and the couple’s relations with the press turned sour as the media criticized their zealous efforts to maintain their privacy.

There was also an element of racism, experts say. Tabloids called the duchess “(almost) straight outta Compton” and “exotic.” They even suggested that her love of avocados was fueling human rights abuses (see “Double Standards”).

When Harry and Meghan wed in 2018, they were considered the future of the royal family. Meghan, a biracial American actress who is divorced, seemed destined to shake things up.

“Meghan represented change because of her racial heritage but also because of her feminism, her activism, and the fact that she is self-made, with strong ideas about her autonomy and identity,” says Afua Hirsch, author of Brit(ish): On Race, Identity and Belonging.

But then came reports that Meghan was miserable. And the couple’s relations with the press turned sour as the media criticized their zealous efforts to maintain their privacy.

There was also an element of racism, experts say. Tabloids called the duchess “(almost) straight outta Compton” and “exotic.” They even suggested that her love of avocados was fueling human rights abuses (see “Double Standards”).

“In Britain’s rigid class society, there is still a deep correlation between privilege and race,” Hirsch wrote in The New York Times. “The relatively few people of color . . . who rise to prominent success and prosperity in Britain are often told we should be ‘grateful’ or told to leave if we don’t like it here.”

The feverish coverage seems to have taken a toll on Meghan.

“I really tried to adopt this British sensibility of a stiff upper lip,” she told a reporter last year. “I tried, I really tried. But I think what that does internally is probably really damaging.”

Harry has also been critical of the British press. In October, he and Meghan sued several newspapers for “knowingly false and malicious” coverage. In a statement, Harry connected the royals’ treatment in the press and his mother’s death. (Diana was killed in a Paris car accident as she fled from paparazzi.)

So it’s no surprise that Harry and Meghan are now boycotting the “Royal Rota,” the press pool that chronicles the royal family’s activities. The duke and duchess want to take control over their interactions with the media.

“In Britain’s rigid class society, there is still a deep correlation between privilege and race,” Hirsch wrote in The New York Times. “The relatively few people of color . . . who rise to prominent success and prosperity in Britain are often told we should be ‘grateful’ or told to leave if we don’t like it here.”

The feverish coverage seems to have taken a toll on Meghan.

“I really tried to adopt this British sensibility of a stiff upper lip,” she told a reporter last year. “I tried, I really tried. But I think what that does internally is probably really damaging.”

Harry has also been critical of the British press. In October, he and Meghan sued several newspapers for “knowingly false and malicious” coverage. In a statement, Harry connected the royals’ treatment in the press and his mother’s death. Diana was killed in a Paris car accident as she fled from paparazzi.

So it’s no surprise that Harry and Meghan are now boycotting the “Royal Rota,” the press pool that chronicles the royal family’s activities. The duke and duchess want to take control over their interactions with the media.

Because Harry is sixth in line to the throne, the royal family will be able to carry on as usual. But for Harry and Meghan, much will change. For starters, they’ll now be allowed to live in Canada and earn money from sources outside the royal family. Some experts predict they’ll write memoirs or sign production deals with streaming companies like Netflix and Spotify, much as President Barack Obama and Michelle Obama did after moving out of the White House. Meghan has reportedly already signed on to do a Disney voice-over project for charity.

It remains to be seen whether the couple’s new life will grant them the independence they crave. But at the moment, they say, it’s their only option.

“It brings me great sadness that it has come to this,” Harry said about the deal. “But I hope that helps you understand what it had to come to, that I would step my family back from all I have ever known, to take a step forward into what I hope can be a more peaceful life.”

Because Harry is sixth in line to the throne, the royal family will be able to carry on as usual. But for Harry and Meghan, much will change. For starters, they’ll now be allowed to live in Canada and earn money from sources outside the royal family. Some experts predict they’ll write memoirs or sign production deals with streaming companies like Netflix and Spotify. This would be similar to the route President Barack Obama and Michelle Obama took after moving out of the White House. Meghan has reportedly already signed on to do a Disney voice-over project for charity.

It remains to be seen whether the couple’s new life will grant them the independence they crave. But at the moment, they say, it’s their only option.

“It brings me great sadness that it has come to this,” Harry said about the deal. “But I hope that helps you understand what it had to come to, that I would step my family back from all I have ever known, to take a step forward into what I hope can be a more peaceful life.”