Apathetic Monarchist: What Harry and Meghan's UK Return Says About the Crown

Monarchy this, monarchy that. Part of the background noise of British socio-cultural commentary is the age-old debate as to whether we should pull a Charles I and be gone with the lot (figuratively speaking – I’d like to think even the most ardent republicans aren’t clamouring for beheadings). In light of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s recent arrest, that question briefly came back to the fore, before sinking again to the foot of the op-ed pages. Even as a white-noise issue, though, you can’t really commentate on Britain without taking a stance. Although I am about as opinionated as they come, I belong to a growing cohort of Generation Z who are largely unbothered by the monarchy’s existence. 

The Royals are a historic institution, bringing in swathes of tourism by elevating the authenticity of our national palaces and monuments. They also often bring unity and stability amid political turbulence. When one observes the King’s usefulness in keeping Anglo-American relations chummy, it becomes pragmatically challenging to call for his abolition. Still, there remains that nagging feeling in the back of the head that it is odd we accept the birthright superiority of anyone in 2026. 

A trade-off, then, is how I’d describe the monarchy. And on that basis, with the benefits outweighing the costs, particularly given the sheer political currency that their departure from public life would cost, I am a monarchist, albeit a somewhat reluctant one. My rather run-of-the-mill analysis here probably reeks of apathy; it simply doesn’t get my political juices flowing, and given the Royal family remains broadly popular in Britain, it is unsurprising that republicanism remains out of the limelight. Broad monarchical acceptance and widespread apathy of my kind have made the Royals surprisingly uncontroversial despite scandals such as the aforementioned Mountbatten-Windsor affair. You’d think the impact of an Epstein-related arrest of a royal would have longer-lasting effects, but most have all but forgotten it. Are we all suffering from regal amnesia? Perhaps, but then why is there such an obsession over Harry and Meghan?

Since announcing they would step down as working royals in January 2020, a ‘hard Megxit’, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have experienced a timeline of turbulence. Above all was their controversial interview with Oprah Winfrey, wherein Meghan accused the Royal family of fostering a racially hostile atmosphere while she faced aberrative persecution at the hands of the ‘monster machine’ tabloid press. The Royal family rejected these allegations; the press did not respond fondly. 

The Economist made clear this was a bridge-burning exercise. The Telegraph suggested that, given the severity of accusations, by not fully giving up their royal privileges, there was hypocrisy at work. GB News went so far as to accuse the pair of being Republican insiders, determined to bring down the monarchy from the inside(ish). Harry’s book, Spare, released two months prior, had set this fury in motion. It was a very open read, touching on a range of topics from drug use to royal sex, but also panned, with The Guardian’s Rachel Cooke describing it as a tone-deaf, privilege-blind memoir. While there was some admiration for their openness, Harry and Meghan’s popularity with the general public remains low compared to that of other members of the Royal family. Recently back in the headlines, the Duke of Sussex lost a privacy case against the publisher of The Daily Mail, before the loud announcement that he and Meghan would be returning to the UK.

The reason for such a move is perplexing. The announcement interrupted everything else going on in the news world. Dropped were stories about Iran, Burnham, or the like, with phones popping with news notifications out the wazoo, more an air raid siren than a welcoming gesture. Given their accounts of harrowing experiences, including panic attacks, racial discrimination, and intense media obsession, it is hard to understand why you’d willingly re-enter the lion’s den. Following Harry’s legal defeat against The Daily Mail and the fact that, aside from ceremonial titles, they are no longer working royals, it feels as if this country has little left to offer them beyond further ‘intrusions’ into the couple’s much-desired privacy. Leaving the sun-kissed vista of Montecito, California, for the rolling hills of the Cotswolds, it doesn’t appear there’s a financial issue at play as they move from one mansion to another. It’s hard to imagine that it's to be close to family either, given Meghan’s account of past hostilities. 

Bringing this back to the monarchy debate of old, Harry and Meghan have drummed up a lot of questions about the Royals and the press. The ‘deal’ between the press and the monarchy is relatively open-access in exchange for favourable coverage, a mutually beneficial relationship, and, given the elevated position of the King (still our Head of State), a positive for the nation’s image, too. While we should ask questions when institutional grievances arise, without a public clamouring for Royal reform, this is clearly a system you can’t beat conventionally, particularly if it is as rigged against the Duke and Duchess of Sussex as they so claim. The logic of returning to the epicentre of this quid pro quo system willingly therefore becomes even more baffling. While many have debated whether the press really has it out for the couple, it is apparent they believe so, given their (albeit halfway house) withdrawal from public life and move to America. But their newfound actions don’t align with that perception, whether it’s true or not. If they are but flies for the media to swat, surely you’d stay out of the web, especially given what the couple now represents.

For the ardent monarchists, they have besmirched the sanctity of a hallowed institution. Such is unforgivable. For the passionate republicans, they are living proof of monarchy’s anachronism. It is warped from the inside out. Then, there’s me, who humanistically can’t help but feel they haven’t thought this all the way through. So long as we still have an unelected Head of State, the question of abolition will always permeate. Harry and Meghan are now a key axis of that debate. They couldn’t escape it before, so there’s no chance after this new in-and-out dance. With public approval of the pair far lower than both the Windsors and the institution of monarchy itself, and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor too easily forgotten, the Royal(ish) couple are likely the biggest threat to monarchism at present. Or at least, the press undoubtedly thinks so. Why they abandoned their idyllic Californian life for such scrutiny is only for them to know.

Image: Wikimedia Commons/Mark Jones

Licence.

No image changes made.