Harry and Meghan: In Pursuit of Wealth and Luxury

READ MORE

Queen Elizabeth II and her family live atop a rigid hierarchy of rank and class awareness that pervades and rots British culture. Under the queen, there is a strict pecking order: princes, dukes, marquesses, earls, viscounts, barons, baronets, knights, followed by the confetti of orders of chivalry handed out to the deserving common folk who have rendered the monarch a service. A network of lord lieutenants — representatives of the queen — reside in every British county to manage the royal patronage at the local level. There are also the hierarchies of the charities and institutions — the Royal Ballet, The Royal National Theater, the Church of England, military regiments and so on — that the queen and her relatives “patronize” (in this instance, an appropriate use of that adjective).

Beyond the aristocratic titles are the untitled gentry compiled in two listings, and . These contain the names and biographies of the “good” families and are the studbooks for the anxious parents of socially ambitious children. The gentry — the old, landed families of England — know who they are and, even if they do not have titles, jealously guard their status. They also make sure their entries in Burke’s are up to date. These families all know each other, mix at the same events, attend the same schools and ensure their offspring marry each other to keep the money and land where it should be. Sometimes, even aristocratic families lose their money and are reduced to earning their living like the rest of us. But they do not lose their status. They may be poor, but they are still upper class. Bloodlines count.

When a complete outsider, Meghan Markle, turned up as Prince Harry’s girlfriend, the questions from his relatives were not about color, race or even money. The questions were: “Does she come from a good family? Do our people know her people? Is she related to the Shropshire Markles? Isn’t that a German name? Perhaps one of the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha cousins might know her?” The questions were about “family.”

None of the answers to any of the questions helped Meghan. The fact that she was beautiful, charming, poised and successful counted for little. Unfortunately for her, the Windsors and the courtiers had already decided that she came from a bad family. Not only that, but divorced and an actress — that word deliberately used rather than “actor.” The gossip picked up from the royal circles was that Meghan’s parents were “common” and “related to no one.” When no senior male relative or even family friend could be found to walk Meghan down the aisle, it just further confirmed her lack of “breeding.”

Even worse, Meghan was given the clear impression that her family was so embarrassing that only her mother could be invited to the wedding. The chatter among the Windsors and the well-connected classes was not about race but about how Harry had married so much beneath him. No wonder Meghan felt an outsider.

Kate Middleton, the duchess of Cambridge, shares much with Meghan — and she knows it. Her family is not of ancient lineage, and her relatives, if not embarrassing, are whispered in palace circles to be, “How shall one say — not our sort of people.” When they were dating, Prince William told his well-born friends to stop saying “doors to automatic” every time his girlfriend came in the room — a reference to the fact Kate’s mother had been a British Airways flight attendant and that William was obviously slumming it. Kate has become acutely aware that she has to disown her past. Meghan is her own person and not willing to do that.

Race is not the problem. The corrosive class consciousness of the British is the issue. The first step to root out this cancer is to abolish the monarchy.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post What Meghan Markle Failed to Understand About the British Monarchy appeared first on 51�Թ�.

20 Years After Diana, Princess of Wales

READ MORE

On April 20, the couple a message in which their representatives state: “What they [Harry and Meghan] won’t do is offer themselves up as currency for an economy of click bait and distortion.” It is hard to believe this, but it is true: Harry and Meghan are refusing to talk to, cooperate with and probably won’t even read certain publications in the UK, including The Sun, The Daily Mirror, The Daily Mail and The Daily Express, and a number of websites.

Their reason for this rejection is their disgust with the “distorted, false and invasive stories” published in these outlets. Harry’s wife, Meghan, is preparing to challenge The Mail on Sunday newspaper in a court case over its decision to print a letter she sent to her estranged father, with a virtual hearing scheduled to take place on April 24.

The couple’s message states: “It is gravely concerning that an influential slice of the media, over many years, has sought to insulate themselves from taking accountability for what they say or print — even when they know it to be distorted, false, or invasive beyond reason. When power is enjoyed without responsibility, the trust we all place in this much-needed industry is degraded.”

What to Make of the Decision

On the one hand, this is an honorable stance, sticking up for ordinary people who have been hurt, embarrassed and exploited by self-serving tabloids. On the other, it is like the shriek of spoiled children who are trying to manufacture their own mythical world in which they will become two beautiful people who don’t have to work, nor concern themselves with the other mundanities that beset most other people, and spend their lives luxuriating away from prying media whilst masquerading as a brand.

Their extraordinary decision will be praised by some, who will support their attempt to preserve their privacy. Others will find it faintly hilarious. This is a couple that has been kissed, clasped and cuddled by the media. They have become the most recognizable couple in the world, eclipsing the likes of Miley Cyrus and Liam Hemsworth, Gigi Hadid and Zayn Malik or Kylie Jenner and Travis Scott. Meghan Markle, a known TV actor in the US before she married Harry in 2018, has grown to be one of the most famous women on the planet, her renown rivaling that of her late mother-in-law, Princess Diana.

Meghan and Harry have decamped from their home in England, at the same time, relinquishing the duties typically befalling a member of the British royal family. They have swapped a life of comfort and privilege for a life of, well, greater comfort and privilege, except in a warmer climate.

But the quid pro quo here isn’t complex. They have risen to their position as darlings of the world’s media by staying in focus and being talked about. Harry no longer wants to be a royal. Meghan wants to be a sort of royal without portfolio, but presumably with enormous earnings potential. Without being too cynical, it seems fair to suggest that, without the cachet of the Windsors, Meghan would be forced back to the grind of acting. So, it is fair to say that she married well.

Unlike other royals, Harry has always gone out of his way not to be typecast. He has always been one of the most versatile and busiest members of the royal family, coexisting in the traditional Windsor family and the celebrity ecosystem. He’s never had to fight for acceptance — his mother bequeathed him more than enough love for one lifetime. For the most time, he’s behaved in a way that has reflected this. He didn’t take the love for granted but accepted it as part of the responsibility.

But now the ordinariness that was integral has been replaced by a sense of affectedness. An affectedness that would have been inconceivable nine years ago when he brazenly into a Croatian nightclub swimming pool fully dressed to the delight of media photographers. Or, in 2012, when the now-blacklisted Sun newspaper nude pictures of him in a Las Vegas hotel.

Forgive Harry?

Is Harry now trying to kid us into thinking he really didn’t want all that attention — the kind that made everyone love him for being an everyman among toffs. Or that he’s newly matured and believes that a man with responsibilities should leave these kinds of pursuits in his past? Or just that he’s now more precious? If it is the last of these, people will turn on Meghan. After all, who else are they going to blame?

For all those who sympathize with the couple and believe their decision is justified, there are an awful lot more who will think it is snobby, conceited and ill-fitting, especially for someone who has become known principally through the very organs he has now cut off.

Yes, the going might have got a bit tough lately. What did Harry and Meghan expect? They’ve left the sceptered isle of Albion and fled to a land of beaches, Disney and car number plates that remind you that you are in the “Golden State.”

Will people ever forgive Harry? Will they figure out that he has become caught up in a tornado that’s whisked him upward and westward and dumped him with his values upside down? And will they forgive “” not only for absconding with Britain’s most-loved royal since Diana, but then turning him against the nation’s favorite newspapers?

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Harry and Meghan Say No to Britain’s Tabloids appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The UK’s House of Windsor has just hosted��the royal wedding of Prince Harry and American actress Meghan Markle,��and British taxpayers are bracing to foot an����of more than $40 million (£30 million) for security arrangements alone.��That surely is painful in the short run, but the long-term effects of monarchies are good for the economy and the standard of living, according to a new study by Wharton management Professor��.

Guillen’s study found that over the 110 years between 1900 and 2010, monarchies had a better record than republics in protecting property rights of businesses and individuals. The study,��,��“Symbolic Unity, Dynastic Continuity, and Countervailing Power: Monarchies, Republics, and the Economy,” looked at data on 137 countries that included republics of different types and dictatorships. He spoke about his research on the Knowledge@Wharton show��on on SiriusXM channel 111.

Spurring Economic Growth

Why exactly are property rights so important? “The form of government has an immediate, direct effect on the protection of property rights,” Guillen said. When companies and individuals feel confident that their property rights — including intellectual property — will not be abused or confiscated by the government, they are more willing to invest in the economy, create more jobs and generate other economic boosters, he explained.

According to Guillen, property rights come under attack in three specific situations. One is when there is a social or political conflict in the country. “That always leads to undermining of property rights and has negative economic consequences,” he said. The second is when politicians remain in power. “As they get used to being the ones who run the government, they become abusive and they tend to privilege their friends — that’s why we have term limits,” he explained. The third is the level of checks and balances on the government. For example, the Congress or the judiciary in a country could restrain the executive branch from acting arbitrarily or expropriating the assets of a company or an individual.

In order for countries to thrive, “[you] need to reduce conflict; you need to reduce the number of years that politicians sustain power because we know that they become abusive sooner or later; and you want to have checks and balances,” he said.

Why Now?

The study is timely, according to Guillen. “There is a lot of discussion about whether it’s better to have a democracy or a dictatorship, and another dimension to this debate has been whether monarchies have a reason to exist today,” he said. The results surprised him. “I wasn’t expecting monarchies actually to perform relatively well in terms of delivering higher standards of living for the population,” he says. “But in a nutshell, that’s what I found.”

Over the past century, many countries have gained independence, especially in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, Guillen noted. Today, of the 190 or so countries in the world, around 23 have monarchies, he said. As it happens, the number of monarchies has been rising over the past few years, he added. “There is something about monarchies that keeps them in place, and some of that is the economic performance that they deliver.”

Both monarchies and democracies have a mixed record in delivering economic growth and all the benefits that flow from that. “We have some monarchies in the world that perform economically extremely well like the UK, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Denmark and Japan,” he said. Similarly, republics that have done well include the US, Germany and Italy. At the same time, many countries that are either monarchies or republics have poor track records, he noted.

Surprising, But True

Guillen said he is aware that his finding that monarchies do a better job at protecting property rights is “very counter intuitive.” People may say “that sounds really weird,” because they think kings and queens are arbitrary, and in many cases, absolute rulers.

Many monarchies have changed for the better over time, Guillen said, and pointed to the so-called “constitutional democratic monarchies” like those in Europe or in Japan. Such monarchies “tend to be very protective of property rights,” have a better chance of reducing internal conflict, and put limits on politicians and prime ministers that want to abuse their powers, he said. For every four monarchies that are democratic and constitutional, one is non-democratic, he noted, adding that many of those are in the Middle East.

To be sure, more and more countries have become democracies over the years. “The historical trend is towards monarchies — essentially kings and queens — accepting a constitutional order and accepting … the democratic rules of the game,” said Guillen. That could also mean the best of both worlds. “You can get all of the benefits from being a democratic country with a constitutional order, and at the same time you get some of the benefits from having a monarchy in place.”

Some constitutional democratic monarchies “work better than others, and have delivered a better standard of living for the population,” Guillen noted. “The evidence in my research shows that there’s no reason for those countries to abolish the monarchy.”

Why Some Monarchies Deliver

Guillen went over some of the chief benefits of monarchies. Countries that are not democratic, such as those in North Africa like Morocco or in the Middle East, may have “one advantage” over a country like the UK, which is that in overcoming social or political conflict, they can engage in repression. Although such repression may help a monarchy cling to power, “in the long run this comes back to haunt them,” he said.

In constitutional democratic monarchies like the UK, Sweden and Denmark, the key advantage is that they have much more legitimacy in telling politicians not to perpetrate themselves in power and make way for rotation, Guillen said.

Monarchies tend to be dynasties and, therefore, have a long-term focus, Guillen noted. “If you focus on the long run, you are bound to be more protective of property rights,” he said. “You’re more likely to put term limits on politicians that want to abuse [their powers].” Here, he said Queen Elizabeth of the UK has exercised her constitutional role admirably in keeping the country’s prime ministers in check, whenever they seemed to overextend their reach.

Also, monarchies bring in “a psychological mechanism,” said Guillen. “If you’re the prime minister and you know there is a higher authority, although it may be a purely formal one and a pure figurehead like a king or queen, you are a little bit more subdued. If there’s nobody else higher or above you, then psychologically you are more prone to abuse your position,” he said.

“Don’t assume that monarchies are backward and that they don’t deliver good results economically — that’s not true,” Guillen said. At the same time, he made it abundantly clear that he is not making a case for a return to monarchies as the form of government. “I’m not advocating in any way, shape or form that every country in the world should adopt a monarchy on the basis of these results,” he said. “The monarchy only works wherever there is a tradition and a foundation for it.” For example, a monarchy in the US would fail, he noted.

Guillen’s argument is more about allowing a particular form of government to prevail if it is delivering the goods. “There’s no point in those countries in which the monarchy works well to organize a movement to get it abolished, because it does produce higher standards of living.”

Republics’ Scorecard

Republics that protect property rights, ensure economic growth and higher standards of living are of two types — parliamentary republics like Germany, or presidential republics like the US.

Parliamentary republics tend to ensure better protection of property rights than presidential republics, Guillen found in his study. He pointed out that many presidential republics, especially in Latin America, perform poorly. “The US is the exception rather than the rule among the presidential republics.”

Monarchies are also “much better than republics at navigating periods of uncertainty” such as the one triggered by Britain’s imminent exit from the European Union, Guillen said, citing research by other scholars on the subject. “Somehow, the institution of the monarchy [in the UK] provides a measure of stability.”

*[This article was originally published by , a partner institution of 51�Թ�.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: ������ /

The post Why Monarchies Rule When It Comes to Standard of Living appeared first on 51�Թ�.

When a royal wedding draws near, the first casualty is rational news reporting. Most of us are in love with crumbling myths and stately legends, and no one does these better than the British royals. Over the next week, we will all receive our invitations. And on May 19, we will all be bewitched by the magical realism of Prince Harry and his bride-to-be Meghan Markle.

Resistance is, as they say, futile. Meghan will have you. She already had most of us at “harassment currently being experienced by Meghan” – that was the phrase used in a highly unusual statement issue by Kensington Palace on Twitter (of all media) in November 2016, which confirmed that rumors of a romantic relationship between Harry and Megan were true.

There are still a few doubters and the usual anti-royalists. There is even a tiny sliver of racist objectors. But, from what we’ve seen and what we know, Meghan is destined to become an unsurpassable, entrancing presence that will keep us gassing and goggling for years. This means she will, by necessity, have a sensitive relationship, not just with the British media, but the world’s. Journalists seem to have no regard for their own safety or reputations when they go in search of people who fascinate us. The media haven’t made Meghan, but they will develop her into someone, perhaps something.

Sans Pareil

Meghan Markle is already a celebrity sans pareil. Grace Kelly is her closest contender. Kelly was the Hollywood star of movies such as High Noon and Rear Window in the 1950s, before she unexpectedly retired to marry Prince Rainier III of Monaco and become Princess Grace. She still ensorcelled the public, though there were no paparazzi in the 1950s, nor a genuinely global media; the first communications capable of receiving and retransmitted signal wasn’t launched until 1962, after which international TV and phone communication became commonplace. And, of course, there was no internet. The developments in media since Princess Grace’s day would seem to increase the possibilities for louche lunacy, particularly from the more ingenious or invasive paps.

Diana sits between the two princesses. In many ways a liminal figure, the late princess of Wales became target practice for a media that, at first, seemed to terrify her, yet eventually transformed her. Diana Spencer unfroze from the quiet, slightly timid kindergarten nanny the world first saw holding two children and innocently showing the silhouette of her legs through a diaphanous skirt in 1980 to become a global icon of fashion, motherhood and, perhaps paradoxically, the British royal family. The media were effectively her tutors and, by the time of her death, she had become one of the most accomplished players – by which I mean manipulator and orchestrator – of the media in history. She had to learn in order to survive.

Like Grace Kelly, Meghan has a background in drama and experience with the media. Both worked with scripts and reacted to directors. The rules of the game are simple, though the goals are less so. Meghan will make herself available to the media, persuading them that they are seeing and hearing the real person and not the character Rachel Zane she has been playing in Suits since 2011. There will be a continual cat-and-mouse pursuit and she will, at least initially, be easy prey. Meghan has experience with a red-hot media and she’s managed not to get her fingers burned. But from May 19, facing the media will seem like standing in front of a gasoline tanker that’s crashed and exploded in a fireball. No amount of media training can prepare her for what lies ahead.

She will become understandably weary of the persistence. Then the goals will become clearer: Will the media want her, body and soul, as they did Diana, or will they be chastened by the memory of 1997 and observe a scarcely visible line not even the most intrepid paparazzi will cross?

It’s impossible to know at present though what evidence there is allows us to speculate. Diana redefined the meaning of the royals. Once aloof, icy, untouchable, inaccessible and utterly remote, members of the Royal House of Windsor were approached only with an alert caution. Editors probably warned their reporters about the baleful consequences of upsetting any member of the family. Diana transformed this within a few years.

By the early 1990s, reporters were taking aerial shots from helicopters, effecting commando-like maneuvers and undertaking treks that would intimidate the Foreign Legion in order to get an image of her. The old rules were cast to the winds.

Nailed to the Floor

Prince Harry, Meghan’s betrothed, was born in 1984. He was Diana’s second child. After his birth, Diana seemed to relax into her role. Already the most admired member of the royal family, she somehow contrived to remain imperious while developing a common touch. Her relatability, her gift for enabling the public to feel they knew or could relate to her, became more pronounced. Hence the label, the “people’s princess.”

Time and again, people would testify that “she touched me” even though they might never have met her, or seen her in the flesh or even stood on the same land mass. There was a tangible quality not so much in her physical presence but in her sheer image. This was made possible by the most exhaustive media coverage of a royal family member in history.

Until now. Meghan’s advisers have probably prepped her how to answer queries about her ethnicity. Her mother is African American and her father was part Irish, part Dutch. They divorced when she was six. In the USA, she’s described as biracial, though in Britain the term isn’t recognized; it has a biological connotation that’s inconsistent with public policy. Dual heritage is the preferred term; this means having parents from different ethnic or cultural backgrounds.

Will she get questions about this? No. After a few snarky online comments when the engagement was announced, all discussion of her ethnicity has subsided and will not, I sense, reappear. It isn’t so much out-of-bounds for journalists; it just isn’t interesting. Brits are more preoccupied with her makeup routine than her genetic makeup. And, as their proxy, the media will ignore it.

There’s certainly curiosity about her Americanness: How will a glamorous celeb from Southern California, sun-kissed land of Kim Kardashian, Paris Hilton and Katy Perry, fare in the regal environs of Kensington Palace in central London’s fashionable residential district? Her new home in the two-bedroom Nottingham Cottage on the palace’s estate is a far cry from Hollywood, where Meghan was educated. The media will be curious to discover how she adapts.

When Germaine Greer sneered about Meghan’s staff, “I think they’ve got her feet nailed to the floor,” she probably didn’t echo the view of many, but she might have prompted journalists to monitor her movements with more-than-usual vigilance. There will be 24-hour stakeouts around the cottage. Greer’s remarks were in the context of her mean-spirited characterization of Meghan as a “bolter,” a reference to the fact that she has been married before in 2011. The marriage lasted only two years before the couple separated. Some accounts suggest the marriage failed because of her pursuit of an acting career and her commitments outside the USA (Suits was filmed in Canada). The media will be wondering whether Meghan can successfully navigate a completely new life, having left the TV show and, it seems, devoted herself to being a full-time royal family member. She’s still only 36; Grace Kelly was 10 years younger when she gave up acting.

What Is She Wearing?

Perhaps the biggest and most frequent question will be asked in silence: What is she wearing? Crass, OK. But not insignificant. Consider this: In September 2017, she appeared with Prince Harry at the Invictus Games in Toronto, wearing jeans by the California brand Mother; the jeans sold out in three days. Markle also carried an Everlane tote, which also quickly sold out. When she recently wore an 18ct gold vermeil with stone inset ring known as the Missoma Interstellar, guess what happened. A white coat from the Canadian brand Line The Label; a sweater by Victoria Beckham; a Strathberry tote bag — they all sold out.

It is difficult to find identifiable piece of apparel that Markle wears that won’t sell out within a day or so of her wearing it. Even in age of celebrity mimicry, when consumers buy products favored by people they admire or strive to emulate, Markle’s effect on audience’s spending is prodigious.

She is undeniably the most influential person, male or female, in the world. For how long, we don’t know. But, given Paris Hilton’s longevity (she’s been moving products off shelves by wearing or carrying them since 2003 – the year of her sex tape), it seems reasonable to suggest that every time she steps out, her jewelry, apparel and accessories will be forensically examined by a curious media then imitated by dozens of thousands, if not millions of others.

The big question that will remain unasked and, for a while, unanswered, is whether she will use that colossal influence for higher purposes.��Public fascination with her will, I suspect, remain for many years to come and, if I’m right, Markle won’t be bothered about how much her style is copied. She will more probably set her sights on influencing how people think and act about issues that have global resonance. Harry’s commitments are known and include Unicef, the National AIDS TRUST and Help for Heroes. Meghan’s will presumably become clear in the months ahead.��The early signs indicate Meghan is outspoken about women’s rights and empowerment. She’s Global Ambassador for World Vision Canada, and among her other interests are poverty and disaster relief.

With this status, could anyone invite more admiration or derision? They come as a package, and Meghan will soon realize that her audience is four parts doter, one part doubter. The royals have their critics, many of them working in the popular media. The brilliance of her conduct so far is that she seems to have genuflected gracefully when taking the plaudits, while elegantly ignoring the disapproval.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:����/

The post Meghan Markle Is the A-List Princess appeared first on 51�Թ�.