Reader TTS

To the royal biographer Penny Junor, Buckingham Palace was “very skilful” in yesterday evening’s statement, following the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s interview with Oprah Winfrey. Though

this comment was meant as praise for the Palace, Ms Junor actually sums up why it fell short.  Some front page reports in the national press commented on the intentional ambiguity of the

carefully crafted 61 words. The _Times_ commented that the statement, for all its surface friendliness marked the start of a robust response to the interview. The London _Evening Standard_

wrote of serious objections expressed by the Prince of Wales via a senior official to the way he had been depicted. The _Daily Mail_ explained the differences between the apparent and actual

meaning of the statement. On careful reading, the conclusion that the Palace response was less conciliatory than it appeared is compelling. Yes, the Royal Family would always regard Harry

and Meghan as much loved members. Yet, the use of first names, while indicating deep affection, also denied recognition of their royal titles. Yes, the Royal Family would take the issue of

reported racism “very seriously”.  However, the statement referred to the anguish of the Sussexes in underwhelming terms. Apparently, it had taken the interview for Harry’s family to learn

“how challenging” Meghan’s experience had been. “Challenging”, perhaps, is euphemistic in reference to strongly suicidal feelings. The couple’s experience of racism had come across to

Buckingham Palace as no more than “concerning” and Harry’s and Meghan’s story was in any case subject to “varying recollections”. At this point, it is unclear how much further Palace

officials will dispute the interview in further non-attributable briefings. There is, in my view, only limited value in exploring in private the ins and outs of recent upsets, such as

whether the Duchess of Sussex made the Duchess of Cambridge cry at a pre-nuptial  bridesmaids’ clothes fitting, or vice versa. Rather than chewing over details of past events with a view to

accusing one party or the other, the task now surely is to identify underlying problems and to suggest solutions. It is my strong impression that both the Queen, Prince Philip and the Prince

of Wales have given exceptional attention to the religious and racial diversity of modern Britain and of the Commonwealth. So have the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.  As an active member of

the Jewish community, I have seen many examples of their exceptional devotion to Jewish organisations and causes. Last year, as I reported in _TheArticle_, the Prince of Wales delivered one

of the best and most humane addresses at the international gathering in Jerusalem to mark the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. At the same time, the Duchess of Cambridge not

only attended a national meeting of Holocaust survivors in London, but produced a number of photo-portraits of survivors, carefully crafted in the manner of Vermeer. Given the Queen’s

devout attachment to the Church of England, the senior royals have been notable in interfaith activities. I know less about royal connections with other faiths and ethnic groups but could

not fail to see the natural joy in the photograph of the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh with Meghan’s mother, expressing their joy at baby Archie. This in no way undermines Meghan’s experience

of being subject to racial prejudice within some Palace circles and certainly in the media. It is typical and all too easy for members of high society, as well as ordinary people, to be

unaware of their own expressions of everyday prejudice and of their damaging personal impact. Prejudice and sincere denial of prejudice are twins. In asking what went wrong, the Palace needs

first to tackle two structural problems. The first arises inevitably from the age of the Monarch. Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh are, and always will be, much admired and

loved. Quite rightly so. Since Her Majesty has now entered the 70th year of her reign, Prince Charles’s position is difficult. The entourages of elderly leaders — whether monarchs, popes,

business moguls or great writers — tend to be febrile. The prospect of imminent but unpredictable change produces a jockeying for position. We do not yet know why the Queen’s longstanding

private secretary Sir Christopher [now Lord] Geidt left his post in 2017. Camilla Tominey of the _Telegraph_ reported that he had been ousted amid “festering acrimony” between courtiers at

Buckingham Palace and Prince Charles’ team at Clarence House. The second systemic difficulty stems from the way in which the Royal Family has come to relate to the press. Anxious, perhaps

overanxious, for favourable publicity, it has courted a group of specialist royal correspondents, some of whom are employed by the tabloids. This has produced a dysfunctional co-dependence

and the leaking of confidential information, misinformation or spin. The Palace (more realistically, the separate and seemingly rival establishments serving the Queen, the Prince of Wales

and the Duke of Cambridge) is not alone in organising a lobby system which permits special access to a chosen group of journalists. The Prime Minister’s office has long operated a similar

system. When I was a postgraduate student at Nuffield College, Oxford, it was a visiting journalist who initiated me into the secrets of the lobby system. So secure was the bond of secrecy

between the favoured reporters and No 10 that one of the lobby journalists chosen by colleagues as their chair had been none other than the correspondent of the Communist Party’s house

newspaper. Gradually, the secrecy conventions surrounding the Westminster Lobby have loosened. No 10  is now going further and adopting the US system of regular public press briefings. The

Monarchy would do well to consider how to alter the _modus operandi _of its communications teams to make its press relations more transparent and thus less liable to hostile leaks delivered

non-attributably. At the same time, the royal bureaucracies should not be afraid of withdrawing co-operation from journalists employed by newspapers which publish crassly racist stories. In

addition, Her Majesty and Prince Charles may respectfully be advised to reconsider some of the decisions that have been taken against Harry and Meghan on the basis of misinterpretations of

royal rules, rules which are in any case not immutable. Catchphrases such as “You’re either in or you’re out” as a serving member of the Royal Family and “You can’t have your cake and eat

it” have been applied wholly inconsistently. There are precedents for members of royal families, including ours, to earn a living while also carrying out some royal duties and there is no

shortage of money-making schemes to bolster royal finances. Here are four practical suggestions to bring about reconciliation and plan for the future. * The Queen should consider giving

Archie and, after her hopefully safe birth, his sister the same princely titles as those bestowed as a matter of discretion on Prince William’s younger children. *  Prince Harry should be

permitted the formal role he seeks in paying tribute to his fellow soldiers on Armistice Day. * Any inquiry into alleged bullying of staff by the Duchess of Sussex should permit them to give

their side of the story and should be extended to cover standards and rights of all staff in the royal households. * It is not too late to give both Meghan and Harry some royal roles and

patronages, albeit part-time and without financial benefit. Clearly they both have exceptional abilities and motives to give public service. Such concrete measures are urgently needed. The

greatest beneficiaries will be the Prince of Wales, as he prepares to assume the throne, the British and Commonwealth publics, and the cause of family reconciliation, finally laying to rest

the legacy of Princess Diana’s tragic death. A MESSAGE FROM THEARTICLE _We are the only publication that’s committed to covering every angle. We have an important contribution to make, one

that’s needed now more than ever, and we need your help to continue publishing throughout the pandemic. So please, make a donation._