Stormy waters for the Royal Family – or a storm in a teacup?

There were, however, other points raised – and seized upon by the media – that would benefit from some clarification and context, so that they do not damage unfairly the reputations of either the current members of the Royal Family (including the Sussexes) or the Royal Household and those associated with it.

For example, The Duke suggested that, in cancelling a personal lunch at Sandringham with the Sussexes, The Queen had received ‘bad advice’. Is that fair? The Queen had another engagement in her diary and was reminded of it by her advisors. She chose, dutifully, to keep the prior engagement. She probably did not realise that events would swiftly make rescheduling the personal engagement with her loved grandson and wife problematic. She may regret that personally but it is unlikely to have changed subsequent events.

Then there is the issue of titles. Meghan implied that their son Archie was somehow being snubbed by not becoming a prince. But as has been widely pointed out, under the Letters Patent 1917, devised by George V to limit the size of the Royal Family, a child of Prince Harry’s would never automatically have been prince or princess. 

George V specifically excluded the sovereign’s great grandchildren unless they were in the direct (then male) line of succession. The Queen modified the primogeniture rule to make it simply the eldest child when estimating the line of succession in 2013.

On the issue of security, it has been practice, in recent years, to keep the costs of such security severely under control, in order to save the public purse. For example, from 2011, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie no longer had any entitlement to protection. A special exception is currently being made, after threats in 2017 and 2018, for Prince George, but ordinarily, while children, the descendants of the monarch are not seen as requiring full-time protection. Princess Anne’s children and grandchildren set the precedent here, alongside the children of her brother Prince Edward.

Finally, to be able to get married in a location (inside or out) not already licensed for marriage, you need a special licence from the Archbishop of Canterbury (unlike the USA, you can only legally marry in a spot licensed for the solemnisation of matrimony). Kensington Palace is not such a location, meaning there would have to be an application for a special licence from the Archbishop of Canterbury. A legal marriage ceremony also has to be witnessed by two people besides the couple and celebrant.

Despite these inaccuracies, the interview has prompted those doom-laden headlines and claims that the monarchy is in crisis. I do not agree.

The institution has, historically, faced similar challenges (Edward VIII’s abdication, the divorce of Charles and Diana being just two), survived and adapted. It will do so again, despite the sorrow caused by the airing of a family quarrel in tones that will wound, personally. Time to heal will be needed, especially those charges of ignoring mental health problems and of racism.