The word republican has a different meaning in Europe. Instead of meaning conservative, as it does in the U.S., it means advocating for a republic, rather than a monarchy. Most peoples of Europe have taken this idea to heart, because European monarchies at the commencement of the 20th century had become institutionally useless and morally corrupt. Although some European countries retained their monarchies in name, only one preserved the institution in name and essence. Even the most ardent republicans, such as we, must admit that the United Kingdom’s constitutional monarchy has proven to be remarkably efficient and stable, giving the British state a unique level of resilience in times of crisis. When, at times, certain members of the British royal family faltered, the Queen always proved to be a reliable Head of State, beloved by her people.
In that context, one must recognise the sacrifice that the members of the British royal family make. It is easy to look at them superficially and say they spend the taxpayers’ money on a lavish lifestyle. But in reality, while about £50 million are spent on the royal family annually, it gives about £200 million to the U.K. government each year, as they give all the profits from their properties to the government, per precedent established by King George III. Furthermore, the high pace of public engagements that the royal family maintains, and the lack of privacy with which they live, means being a British royal requires a great amount of personal sacrifice.
Last week, many in the U.K. and the U.S. were shocked by the announcement from the Duke and Duchess of Sussex that they would step back from royal duties; the reactions, however, were wildly different. Many in the U.S. applauded Meghan Markle for standing up to the family, and branded anybody who dare criticise her as racist and bigoted. On the other hand, in the U.K., most major publications criticised the couple for their dereliction of duty and the disrespectful manner in which they abandoned their posts.
Herein lies the disconnect between the American outlets and the British ones, and rest of the world for that matter; the American journalists refuse to even consider that the issue might be anything other than race. To be fair, some consider another option as well—a bizarre form of feminism, that, according to Markle, advocates for and empowers women. Just to clarify, the argument is that women forcing their husbands to leave their families empowers women. This backwards approach is uniquely American in today’s global context, and demonstrates how militant certain “progressive” movements have become.
To British observers, it would appear that the decision made by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex came primarily from Meghan, who many believe to be steering the royal family in accordance with her wishes, thus explaining the British press’ attacks on Meghan’s neglection of duty. American publications, though, aren’t fully able to comprehend, as a British citizen might, the long and proud history of the British monarchy and how last week’s decision has ripped the centuries-old thread of tradition and monarchy.
This case is a very explicit example of conflict between established tradition and militant reformism. The rhetoric pushed by some is so manufactured with a predestined purpose that such arguments don’t remotely make sense. The British people aren’t perfect, and they’ve had their fair share of racist incidents over the years. But nowadays, the British are one of the least racist societies, not only in Europe, but in the entire world, and trying to call this incident racist simply ignores the greater issue. Harry and Meghan were public servants, working for the British people, living through the hardships and taking advantage of the benefits that come with the job. And make no mistake, for most Brits, Meghan’s skin colour makes no difference, but her attitude of disrespecting a country’s most cherished institution makes all the difference.
Bora Balcay (SFS ’23) is the Managing Editor for International Affairs, and Nicolas Gardner (SFS ’23) is a Contributor.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official or personal position of the Editorial Board, Contributors, or Business Staff of The Georgetown Review.
