Skip to main content
Complete Olympic Games coverage at your fingertips
Your inside track on the Olympic Games
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week for 24 weeks
Complete Olympic Games coverage at your fingertips
Your inside track onthe Olympics Games
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

Every few years, the Royal Family will do something “modern.” The Queen might send a tweet, or Prince Charles will unveil a sustainable fashion collection called The Modern Artisan, with the goal of seeming just like us. Or more like us, anyway, so that anti-royalist sentiment doesn’t actually boil over.

But things don’t actually change very much inside those palace walls, as Oprah Winfrey’s explosive interview with Prince Harry and Meghan Markle demonstrated. The ancient world of ritual and emotional constipation met the modern world’s reckoning with mental health and racial justice, and the result was not pretty, but it was illuminating.

Ms. Markle told Ms. Winfrey that the pressures she was facing as a new royal in 2019, including from a hostile British press, had made her suicidal. “I just didn’t want to be alive anymore. And that was a very clear and real and frightening constant thought,” she said. Instead of trying to help her, the palace bureaucracy treated her distress with callousness: “I said that I’ve never felt this way before, and I need to go somewhere. And I was told that I couldn’t, that it wouldn’t be good for the institution.”

Story continues below advertisement

This is where the hypocrisy over modernization comes fully into view. In the past decade, the youngest royals have made mental health their signature cause. Prince William is a patron of the Heads Together mental-health charity in the U.K., and he’s advocated for more compassionate treatment in workplaces. In 2019, William made a documentary about mental health, opening up about his own anxieties and also interviewing Lady Gaga about her struggles with PTSD. In 2017, William and Prince Harry spoke openly about the legacy of pain they felt about the very public death of their mother, Princess Diana, in 1997. It was all very poignant and, it appears, about as shallow as a puddle.

The ghost of Diana hovered over Meghan and Harry’s interview. How could it not? Here was a young man who was forced to walk, at the age of 12, behind his mother’s casket as the world watched. Now he was seeing his wife suffer the same agonies that his mother had endured and having her calls for help be ignored in the same way. Diana had tried to tell the public about her struggles with bulimia, only to be rebuffed by the palace. She too had had suicidal thoughts and made attempts to take her own life. She too tried to modernize the Royal Family – to drag it out of the 19th century – and was hung out to dry for her efforts.

And Diana was a white aristocrat, one of them. How much worse was it for Ms. Markle, a biracial American actress? It doesn’t get much more outsider than that. (Let’s not forget that the Daily Mail welcomed her to the family with the headline, “(Almost) Straight Outta Compton.”) When Ms. Markle said that a Royal Family member had been concerned about the shade of her unborn baby’s skin, Ms. Winfrey’s face expressed the shock that viewers felt. But is it really so surprising that a family living in actual palaces, surrounded by art and treasure from its colonial past, cocooned by uniformed staff who curtsy and bow like it’s still the 18th century, might be just a little bit racist?

Meghan, the wife of Prince Harry, accused the Royal Family of raising concerns about how dark their son's skin might be and pushing her to the brink of suicide, in a tell-all television interview that will send shockwaves through the monarchy. Reuters

It could be argued that the public has been complicit in this sheltering in the past. The millions of tourists who visit Britain every year, and who tune in for royal weddings, want to see the pomp, the gilded carriages, the ceremonial swords. If the Queen lived in a terrace house and shopped at Tesco, interest in her family might drop precipitously. But The Firm, an insider’s reference to the Royal Family, has had decades to get the balance right, between pomp and progression, and it has failed at every jump.

Of course, Meghan and Harry could have been ambassadors to a new future, if the palace had been wise. They could have walked through the door that Diana opened. Instead, they’ve been cast out – or they’ve made a lucky escape, depending on your perspective. The Royal Family will once again be thrown back on its heels, forced to defend itself (through various anonymous sources) that it is indeed a modern, viable institution for the 21st century. Is that believable, though? To quote another ancient British institution, The Who, we won’t get fooled again.

Keep your Opinions sharp and informed. Get the Opinion newsletter. Sign up today.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow the author of this article:

Follow topics related to this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies