Thread by @craigprescott

1/ There is a real risk that the #OprahMeghanHarry interview is basically an extended Graham Norton interview…

I feel a thread coming on... with THREE Bagehot quotes… and a mention of the Sainsbury’s in Chippenham.

(And no offence to Graham is intended!)

2/ First and foremost, the monarchy is a *political* institution. This cannot be emphasised enough. Being the institution that provides the Head of State, fundamentally, everything it does is based on politics. Although the role is broadly ceremonial, this is still politics.

3/ The UK constitution, as it has developed, has a Head of State which is not involved in day-to-day party politics. Indeed it provides the envelope within which politics is conducted. Sir Kier Starmer leads “Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition”. Party politics is for politicians.

4/ So what is the political role of the monarchy? It is to conduct political acts of such wide acceptance that they ultimately transcend ordinary party politics. The distinction between the “state” and “government” creates the space in which to operate.

5/ Think about the Queen (now Prince Charles) at Remembrance Sunday, or the recent comments by the Queen regarding vaccinations. In the broadest sense they are “political” acts, but (largely) beyond question. They gain traction by conducted by a non-party political Head of State.

6/ This requires an great care on the part of the Queen and the rest of Royal Family (who act on behalf and in support of the Queen) as to what they can and cannot say or do in public. Otherwise, this all breaks down very quickly.

7/ Yes, in recent years, the Royal Family have taken up causes, but in a way which is beyond ordinary party politics - think about Heads Together, think about the Prince’s Trust, think about the Duchess of Cornwall talking about domestic violence. thetimes.co.uk/article/ballet…

8/ But this isn’t “activism” in the traditional way, it isn’t about putting yourself forward, and leading the charge, but drawing attention to appropriate causes, or using the “convening power” of being a royal to get those who work in the area to work together in new ways.

9/ Neither is it “celebrity” - you’re not selling anything or trying to increase your profile. But over time a royal must put themselves about - to quote Walter Bagehot “Who is the showman is not material unless you care about the show”.

10/ Clearly, all of this very subtle, and as Bagehot said as regards Queen Anne “there were indeed difficulties which would have baffled most people; but an Englishman whose heart is in a matter is not easily baffled”.

10/ And this is ultimately the great pity about all this. Meghan could have added several dimensions to what the Royal Family was doing. Her friends are adamant that she had the qualities to make a go of it all. It’s the same with those who spoke to People Magazine.

https://twitter.com/halfadams/status/1367882071989841924

11/ But there’s no recognition (from what we’ve seen so far) that Meghan showed any understanding as to what she was joining; nor do her friends.

12/ This is the reverse of what Bagehot said, “It is idle to expect an ordinary man born in the purple to have greater genius than an extraordinary man born out of the purple”;

The more extraordinary Meghan’s friends portray her, the more they appear to miss this point.

13/ Becoming a popular royal does not require being an extraordinary person, but a (relatively) ordinary person adopting to an extraordinary position. The Duchess of Cornwall is no natural, but has become rather good at it all.

14/ And yes, Camilla had a dreadful press. So dreadful that she once got pelted by bread rolls at Sainsbury’s in Chippenham during the 1990s.

Although there was no social media then, and there is no excuse for hatred or racism.

15/ Does any of this matter now that the Sussexes have left? Yes, if she is going to use an interview with Oprah, to make political claims about a political institution, or more broadly about the UK, then those claims should be scrutinised.

16/ You would expect nothing less of Emily Maitliss (and many others), and nothing less should be expected from Oprah Winfrey.

Otherwise she might as well have been interviewed by Graham Norton.

17/ Is the Monarchy perfect? To ask a question Lord Altrincham asked in the late 1950s.

No, I would abolish Queen’s Consent, look at the Regency Act, and other things. But they’re all issues for another day, which relate more closely to the formal role of the monarchy.