Two things. First, I totally called it when I pointed out that royalists were still going to be screaming, crying and throwing up over the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s Australian “tour” weeks after the fact. I KNEW that King Charles and Camilla would be standing on American soil and royalists would still be bitching about Harry and Meghan. The second thing, which I did not predict: that Buckingham Palace would lean into the Sussex obsession and try to twist a comparison in Chuck and Cam’s favor. As in, “Charles and Camilla are showing why their way of royal-touring is far superior than the Sussexes’ way!” The fact that a whole-ass royal establishment is clout-chasing Harry and Meghan… well, it speaks volumes. Speaking of, that bonkers “commentator” Lee Cohen has written a (likely palace-commissioned) screed in the Spectator about the Sussexes versus the king. An excerpt:
King Charles III’s state visit to Washington this week is the monarchy executing its core diplomatic function with precision and dignity. In Donald Trump’s Washington, an invitation to an event with the British monarch remains the most sought-after in the city. By stark contrast, the King’s son and daughter-in-law careen around the globe representing no one but themselves. They dress up as royals in a sustained exercise in self-promotion and profiteering that repels observers and belittles the very institution that gave them their platform. One upholds the Crown’s purpose, while the other commodifies it.
The King and Queen travel as invited guests of the US government. President Trump will receive them at the White House. A state dinner follows. The King will address a joint session of Congress – the first British monarch to do so since his mother in 1991. There will be a military review and engagements marking the 250th anniversary of American independence. Every element has been arranged through official channels. Buckingham Palace has published the itinerary. The Foreign Office has underwritten the diplomatic framework. The visit projects British soft power and will act as a balm to a relationship strained by politics. This is the modus operandi of the King and Queen and the working royals, who discharge their obligations with no expectation of personal reward.
Harry and Meghan prefer pantomime. Their recent tour of Australia replicated the pattern set in Nigeria and Colombia last year: private invitations, curated panels, hospital visits and cultural events staged to mimic royal tours. No state banquet. No parliamentary address. No military honors extended as sovereign courtesy. They retain the titles and parade about as if still in service to something other than themselves. The choreography flatters their hosts and sustains their brand. It achieves nothing for Britain.
The timing could scarcely be more provocative. As the King prepares for this delicate state visit to Washington, Harry chooses this moment – during a drop-in visit to Ukraine – to lecture President Trump on the need for America to “step up” and to urge Vladimir Putin to “choose a different course.” Harry holds no office, no mandate and no accountability to any government or public. His assumption of authority on war and peace is not leadership; it is an exercise in self-promotion that crowds out serious diplomacy. One cannot renounce royal obligations, cling to the titles for commercial advantage and then adopt the pose of global statesman whenever it suits. This is the very definition of a grift. It cheapens the Crown’s reputation and insults the public’s intelligence. The present arrangement of privilege without responsibility has grown intolerable.
Um… Harry and Meghan were invited to Nigeria and Colombia by those respective governments. Nigeria’s defense department invited Harry and Meghan to visit to highlight their military and veterans programs. Meghan was honored by local tribes and they gave her royal honors. The Sussexes also visited Colombia at the invitation of government officials, and much like the Nigerian visit, the Sussexes’ agenda was mostly set by and through the government. Granted, the Sussexes’ Australian visit was not organized through the government, nor were they invited by the prime minister. That didn’t need to happen – Harry and Meghan are free to travel and free to represent themselves and their interests wherever they want. You can’t argue that Harry and Meghan have no place in the monarchy while simultaneously arguing that Harry and Meghan must conduct themselves as full-time working royals at all times.
I wanted to cover this because I’ve seen these same talking points being mimicked across royalist media. Versions of “Take that, Harry and Meghan, you could never have the authority and power as a king and his side-chick queen!” Like… you’re the ones making a whole-ass state visit into a referendum on a private tour which happened two weeks ago. The palace is inviting this comparison, right? They actually think this is a “talking point” which works in Charles’ favor??
Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Cover Images.
