At a time with a dearth of bipartisan consensus, hating on the royal family is in vogue, irrespective of political persuasion.
For progressives, anything that even approaches sexism or racism is ripe for “cancellation,” and in their eyes, the crown epitomizes both of these manifestations of bigotry. Conservatives pride themselves on being the ideological progenitors of the American Revolution. Contemporary Republican rhetoric is filled with invocations of the founding fathers, a theme since Goldwater that has continued unabated through the latest populist iteration of the GOP.
Naturally, many on the right have adopted an adversarial stance towards anything that strikes monarchism or Anglophilia. These sons and daughters of the Revolution tell us that if we don’t do our utmost to distinguish ourselves from the pretentious cavaliers across the pond, then we’re no better than Benedict Arnold himself.
This is why many watched with glee as Prince Harry and Meghan Markle disparaged the royal family in a bombshell interview with Oprah Winfrey about their decision to leave the “institution.” Liberal Senator Brain Schatz (D-HI) snidely tweeted that “My hot take is that the American Revolution was good.” The sneering was not unique to the left. Meghan McCain, daughter of the late Republican icon, John McCain, remarked that “Monarchy has been an archaic and toxic concept since 1776.” The Federalist, a conservative outlet, ran a piece entitled, “Caring About the British Royal Family Is Fundamentally Un-American.”
While it may seem ironic that many in the nation that prides itself on being the first to throw off the yoke of colonial dependency seem enamored by the palace intrigue of a hereditary monarchy, this view of the Crown is deeply misguided. It obscures the fact that we inherited our political culture from our British forebears.
While Americans may not have a Westminster-style parliament or unwritten constitution, the norms and procedures of our representative democracy are rooted in the rich political traditions of England. It’s no wonder that many of the colonists who objected to British rule complained about the abridgment of their rights as Englishmen.
Liberalism, limited government, and constitutionalism are all British inventions. Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia alike may have fetishized Montesquieu’s separation of powers and federalism; but as important as these concepts may be, they mean little in places with no tradition of political Liberalism. Look no further than the many failed states that adopted our system of government to see the insignificance of checks and balances in places with no democratic heritage.
One might ask, what does the Crown have to do with all this? Wasn’t monarchical absolutism historically the primary impediment to parliamentarianism throughout British history? In reality, the story is much more nuanced. The ratification of the Magna Carta in 1215 precipitated the decline of the English monarch’s executive powers and over the centuries, the Crown’s function has been reduced to a largely ceremonial role.
However, this would not have happened without events like the relatively bloodless Glorious Revolution of 1688 in which Parliament invited Mary II and her husband, William III of Orange, to depose James II, and confirmed the primacy of Parliament over the crown with the consent of the new monarch. Today, the Crown serves as a symbol of the triumph of republicanism over autocracy.
The Crown is also an emblem of the former primacy of the British Empire, the United States predecessor in geopolitics. British colonialism was by no means perfect. Horrific atrocities were committed in the name of colonial rule throughout Pax Britannica. However, the notion that undeveloped parts of the global south would’ve been materially better-off if the British had stayed home is ahistorical. As British historian Nail Ferguson points out, “the counterfactual idea that somehow the indigenous rulers would have been more successful in economic development [on their own] doesn’t have any credibility at all.”
Harry and Meghan’s unsubstantiated allegations of racism against members of the Royal Family and implict claim that the monarchy is a white supremacist institution does an immense disservice to the U.K. and the entire Anglosphere.
The way in which they tarnished the legacy of Elizabeth II was grotesque. The Queen has managed the decline of the British Empire with grace as the realms within her dominion have slipped away and gained independence, all while standing a symbol of the West for almost 70 years. The Queen is also a patron to 510 charities in Britain. Meghan on the other hand seems to be too busy bullying royal staff members to busy herself with charity.
Now, former Good Morning Britain anchor Piers Morgan is being investigated by the British Office of Communications for making harmful and offensive statements about Markle’s trashing of the monarchy — at the behest of the Duchess of Sussex herself! It’s times like these that we can rest assured that we have a First Amendment.
Regardless, Americans should know that the Crown is worthy of defending and should not be impugned by heinous uncorroborated allegations of prejudice. If Markel wants to regain public trust, she should say who made the alleged racist remarks about her baby’s skin color. She could stop some of the destructive rumor-mongering if she told us.
Until then, there is no reason to trust a 39-year-old privileged princess over one of the most extraordinary people of our time, the Queen of England.