So. I hadn't really engaged with this story yet.
But a couple of things stand out.
First of all - the whole doling out of titles is a highly arcane process - and while William's younger children were granted the right to become Princes under a 2012 act, Harry's children, as great-grandchildren of the Queen, were never in line to be afforded that right.
In the UK there are very specific rules regarding who is entitled to be a Prince or Princess. Most of these rules come from Letters Patent issued in 1917 by King George V, in which the King accords the Princely title to all children of the Sovereign, to the Sovereign’s male-line grandchildren and to the eldest living of the Prince of Wales’s eldest son.
However, when the Law of Succession changed to absolute primogeniture in 2012, The Queen issued new Letters Patent to make sure that all children of the Prince of Wales’s eldest son were entitled to be Princes and Princesses. That change was necessary because if the Duchess of Cambridge’s firstborn had been a girl, she would be ahead of any younger brother in the succession, but still be titled as a Lady, while her younger brother would be a Princ
Secondly, Harry and Meghan seemed to be making a statement by refusing a title for their son at the time. While that could have been a cover story, the way it was covered, in their words, suggested that they were making a conscious break from history - for which they were rightly praised. That feels a little hollow - to both take the praise, and the pity over their son's lack of titles.
I should note. Racism in Britain is an issue, especially among the establishment. Members of the Royal Family have made some serious gaffes in the past, from racist jewellry, to Prince Phillip making off-the-record remarks that were cringeworthy for the 50s, let alone today. I would not be surprised, sadly, if Markle's experience was uniquely challenging.
*
If I had to guess, I'd say that Meghan was faced with some legitimate cruelty - that much has always been an uncomfortable truth about the Monarchy. She went nuclear in her response, weaponising public interest,
as is her right. That being said, she's managed to weaponise the arcane nature of the monarchy's traditions to promote a narrative that is not entirely factual.
This isn't going to be the final nail in the Monarchy's coffin. It does complicate things though. The country is already on tenderhooks from that perspective.
The Queen will die at some point, and unfortunately, that means we get Charles - who no-one likes, as monarch. William and Kate have been the only hope for preserving the institution for some time. If they are damaged by this, republican sentiment could become more mainstream.
It's still unlikely to alter the constitution, without further scandal, but it could lead to deep partisan divisions, on par with the US approach to the presidency.
*
In summary, I really sympathise with Meghan. Her marriage to Harry felt like a sign that the country was finally making some progress. I just wish that this one aspect of her interview wasn't being focused on - as it's rather misleading.
Focus on the bullying, the comments made about Archie's ethnicity, the myriad failings of the British press. Rail against the establishment. But Archie Mountbatten-Windsor was not denied a title on the basis of race.
I know this is a stupid effort post. And that it's fairly insignificant in the long run. But the monarchy is defined by tradition. The infamous refusal to fly a flag at half-mast over Buckingham Palace after Diana's death, was based on 500 years of precedent
(The Royal Standard, not the Union Flag is raised over Buckingham, but only when the Queen is in attendence, and never lowered below full mast. A special exemption was made for Diana, following vehement criticism). To understand the Windsors, you need to understand how wedded they are to ancient, often farcical protocol.
