Harry

For the coronation of Elizabeth II on 2 June 1953, all the members of the Royal Family were present, with one notable exception: her uncle, the former Edward VIII, now the Duke of Windsor. Although Edward had attempted to build civil relations with his niece after her accession to the throne the previous year, it was widely – and correctly – believed that his toadying to her was largely connected to his wishing to extract money from her, and besides his publication of a scandalous and revelatory memoir, A King’s Story, in 1951 had seen him cast out into outer darkness by his family. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Geoffrey Fisher,

‘Why do you lot hate Harry and Meghan so much?’ It’s a question the formerly royal couple’s supporters often ask whenever the pair trend on Twitter, as a clip of the Sussexes’ latest pronouncement, or news of their latest corporate deal, goes viral. They think they already know the answer of course: it is sexism, racism or probably both. Meghan is a woman of colour who dares to speak out about equality and this infuriates gammons and ‘anti-woke’ commentators alike. But the answer is actually very simple, and has nothing to do with Meghan’s skin colour or sex. Harry and Meghan are profoundly annoying. They are virtue-signalling made flesh. They

Harry and Meghan are famously protective of their privacy and as a result hostile to those media outlets they don’t personally seek out. But of all the British broadcasters, ITV are regarded as having the best links with the estranged royal couple. News at Ten anchor Tom Bradby is known to be a friend of the Duke of Sussex and was responsible for bagging the 2019 interview in which Meghan Markle lamented that no one had asked if ‘she was ok.’ So it was with interest that Mr S read a blog published today by the channel’s highly regarded Royal Editor Chris Ship. In the article Ship focuses on possible upsides of

If bouquets and Bollinger were winging their way to Montecito last night they were well deserved. When Harry and Meghan met Oprah, the trio turned in the performance of their lives. From dramatic pauses, wiping away tears, hand-holding, Diana-reminiscent eye make-up, the English country garden-style backdrop interspersed with scenes from the chicken coop and shots of little Archie running along a Californian beach, to accusations and big reveals – everything was performed with absolute perfection. The build-up was justified. This did not disappoint. For Harry and Meghan, no doubt poring over press coverage, the success of their interview will be measured not in advertising revenue, or in viewing figures, but

When it comes to Harry and Meghan, is it time for everyone to take a collective deep breath? With the build-up to the ‘tell-all’ Oprah interview and the recent disclosure of bullying allegations, it feels like hysteria around the couple is at fever pitch. In the war of the Waleses, is there room for a middle ground? The more vicious Meghan Markle’s critics are, the more her supporters portray her as an almost Christ-like figure. Her detractors then become irritated by the virtue-signalling, her defenders cite racism and sexism, and the vicious circle continues. Every action just seems to entrench each side’s position until there is no room for manoeuvre.

Was Harry and Meghan’s departure from royal life inevitable? At the heart of our monarchy is an ideal of serving the public good that is not the same as the currently dominant form of progressive idealism espoused by the likes of Meghan. It is not the same as it, and when it comes down to it, it is not compatible with it. The British monarchy’s ideal of the public good is fairly vague, fairly flexible. But it entails a basic respect for tradition. And it entails the ideal of self-sacrifice. To serve the good means accepting constraints, accepting that you might not get what you want. It means accepting the possibility