|
 Oprah Winfrey's tell-all TV
interview with the couple has dragged the royals
into the biggest crisis since the death of
Harry's mother Diana in 1997, when the family,
led by Queen Elizabeth, was widely criticised
for being too slow to respond.
In the two-hour show, originally aired on CBS on
Sunday evening, Harry also said that his father,
heir-to-the-throne Prince Charles, had let him
down.
"Worst Royal Crisis in 85 Years," read the front
page of the Daily Mirror newspaper, while the
Daily Mail's cover asked "What Have They Done?".
The Sun columnist Trevor Kavanagh questioned if
the interview meant the end for the royals.
"It could hardly be more damaging to the royal
family, not least because there is little it can
do to defend itself," The Times said in a lead
article under the title "Royal Attack".
"The key to the monarchy's survival over the
centuries has been its ability to adapt to the
needs of the times. It needs to adapt again,"
The Times said.
Elizabeth, who is 94 and has been on the throne
for 69 years, wanted to take some time before
the palace issued a response, a royal source
said.
Nearly three years since her star-studded
wedding in Windsor Castle, Meghan gained
sympathy in the United States by casting some
unidentified members of the British royal family
as uncaring, mendacious or guilty of racist
remarks.
She and Harry have also had a torrid
relationship with the British press, and in
particular tabloids who have been critical of
the couple.
For the monarchy, which traces its history
through 1,000 years of British and English
history to William the Conqueror, Meghan's
bombshell has been compared to the crises over
the death of Diana and the 1936 abdication of
Edward VIII.
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson avoided
questions about the crisis, though he serves, in
theory, as a servant of the crown and Elizabeth
II is head of the British state as well as 15
other realms including Canada, Australia and New
Zealand.
Johnson said he had the highest admiration for
the queen but that he did not want to comment on
the interview. New Zealand's Prime Minister
Jacinda Ardern said her nation was unlikely to
stop having the queen as head of state soon.
"DARK SKIN"
Opponents of the monarchy said the allegations
made by Meghan and Harry showed how rotten the
institution was.
"Now people are getting a much clearer picture
of what the monarchy is really like. And it
doesn't look good," said Graham Smith, head of
Republic, a campaign group which seeks to
abolish the monarchy.
[to top of second column]
|
 "With the queen likely to be
replaced by King Charles during this decade the
position of the monarchy has rarely looked
weaker," Smith said.
Some royal supporters cast Meghan, a 39-year-old
former U.S. actor, as a publicity seeker with an
eye on Hollywood stardom. But
the gravity of the claims has raised
uncomfortable questions about how the British
monarchy, which survived centuries of revolution
that toppled their cousins across Europe, could
function in a meritocratic world.
Meghan, whose mother is Black and father is
white, said her son Archie, who turns two in
May, had been denied the title of prince because
there were concerns within the royal family
"about how dark his skin might be when he's
born".
She declined to say who had voiced such
concerns, as did Harry. Winfrey later told CBS
that Harry had said it was not the queen or her
99-year-old husband Philip, who has been in
hospital for three weeks while the crisis
unfolds. 'DEFERENCE OVER'
Meghan's estranged father Thomas Markle, who she
has not spoken to since her wedding, said on
Tuesday he did not think the British royal
family was racist, and hoped that an alleged
remark from a family member about the darkness
of the skin of Meghan's son was just a "dumb
question".
"The thing about what colour will the baby be or
how dark will the baby be; I'm guessing and
hoping it's just a dumb question from somebody,"
Markle told ITV. "It could be somebody asked a
stupid question. Rather than being a total
racist."
Harry said his family had cut them off
financially, and his father Prince Charles had
let him down and refused to take his calls at
one point.
"The age of deference, already under strain,
will vanish with her passing," Kavanagh wrote,
questioning whether the royal family would
survive beyond the popular queen.
Others pointed to the fact that the institution
has survived crises in the past.
"It is obviously damaging because anything that
tarnishes their reputation is bad," royal
commentator Penny Junor told Reuters. "But I
think overall it's a strong institution, it's a
good institution. It has served Britain
extremely well over the decades. I hope that it
will survive this."
(Reporting by Michael Holden; Editing by Mike
Collett-White)
[© 2021 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2021 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content |
