The Observer
Comment & Analysis 25.08.19 17Take a feudal relic. Add
a splash of glamour. A pinch of
wokeness. And a dash of hypocrisy.
Stir in a lashing of racism. Squeeze
out the last dregs of nuance. And
dump it all into the ferment of social
media and tabloid gossip. What
do you get? A surreal debate about
Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, the
royal family, racism and wokeness
that seems to have turned more
heads than one of the duchess’s
£60,000 outfi ts.
The latest episode in the soap
opera began when the Duke and
Duchess of Sussex and their three-
month-old son, Archie, took a private
jet to fl y to the south of France
to holiday in Elton John’s villa.
Cue outrage about the hypocrisy
of a couple who make much of
their environmental credentials.
And counter-outrage from those
who insist that the criticism is
unwarranted and cover for bigotry.
John himself sprang to the
couple’s defence , as did a host of
celebrity friends. “Dear England
and English press,” tweeted actress
Jameela Jamil, “just say you hate
her because she’s black, and him
for marrying a black woman and
be done with it God dammit.” Jamil
is featured in the latest edition of
British Vogue – guest-edited by the
duchess.
It’s not the fi rst time that a royal
has been turned into a soap opera.
What makes the duchess different,
though, is that she’s black. Much
of the discussion of her blackness
has been of the “nudge nudge,
wink wink” type, from the Daily
Mail’s “ Harry’s girl is (almost)
straight outta Compton ” story to
Rachel Johnson’s description of the
duchess’s “exotic DNA”. And then
there have been the straightforward
racist trolls on Facebook and
Twitter, 4chan and Gab. But whilesome of the criticism has been
racist, we should not exaggerate the
extent of it. According to one study,
most of the abuse on Twitter has
been driven by just 20 accounts.
Nor is there any truth to the claim
that “England hates Prince Harry for
marrying a black woman”. According
to the 2011 census, 2.3 million
Britons, including a million white
people, are either married to, or
living with, someone of a different
ethnicity. On this, as on other social
issues, the Sussexes are following,
not leading, public attitudes.
The real impact of Meghan
Markle has been less on
reactionaries and racists than onKenan
Malik
Sure, defend Meghan from racists,
but let’s not bow to the monarchy
liberals and progressives, many of
whom have seemingly forgotten (or,
at least, conveniently set aside their
understanding) that there is nothing
progressive about a monarchical
system, whoever may be part of it.
From the moment it was announced
that Harry and Meghan were to wed,
there has been a stream of claims
that a black royal will transform
race relations in Britain and that the
couple’s social liberalism will turn
the royals into “potential allies” in
progressive struggles.
There is a certain irony in so
many being so alive to every nuance
of white privilege but seemingly so
blind to the privilege that fl auntsitself through the hereditary
monarchy. Making inherited
privilege more “diverse” is hardly
a step forward in the battle against
racial inequality (or, indeed, against
climate crisis). Perhaps nothing
divides opinion more than the royal
couple’s supposed “wokeness”- their support for causes from
environmentalism to disability
rights. For many liberals, it’s a
“beacon of hope”. For reactionaries
from Nigel Farage to Piers Morgan,
it’s the corruption of a noble
institution.
Historically, to
be “woke” meant to be alive to
injustices and has its roots in both
black and working-class struggles.
In recent years, the phrase has come
to the fore in black struggles against
police brutality in the US.
Today, though, to be woke is not
simply to be aware of injustices,
but to make a show of being aware.
It’s become one of those terms,
like “political correctness”, that has
been squeezed dry of meaning but
possesses, for proponents and critics
alike, great posturing value, allowing
people to signal their place on the
cultural map. In this, it’s the perfect
tool for today’s monarchy. After all,
no one needs to posture more than
those who seek to “modernise” an
inherently obsolete system.
Every day we are reminded that
we live in an age in which many take
pride in not being able to walk and
chew gum at the same time. Surely,
though, it’s not too much to ask
that we be hostile to racism without
bending our knee to inherited
privilege?Many liberals seem to
have forgotten there is
nothing progressive
about our royalty
Does having
children make
you happy? Yes,
if you let them
Children can make you
happy. But only once they’ve left
home. So suggests a new academic
study. It’s the latest in a pile of
recent studies that have sought to
measure parenting and happiness.
While the results have been mixed,
most suggest that parents are less
happy than non-parents.
The very question “Do childrenmake parents happy?” would have
seemed odd a generation or two
ago. Having children was simply
what you did.
Possessing greater reproductive
choice has been a boon, especially
for women. But the way we think
of choice has also distorted our
perception of happiness and of the
signifi cance of children.
We look upon happiness today
almost exclusively in an individual
context. It’s something that you,
and you alone, feel or desire.
Unhappiness comes from beingconstrained in what you can do.
But everything we do is shaped by
constraints, because we live not
simply as individuals but within
societies. Some constraints are good,
some bad. Politics, in part, is about
defi ning which are good and which
bad and minimising the latter.
But constraints are inevitable.
There is almost nothing we do
that gives us pleasure that does
not impose a burden. What we
think of as constraints – the
impositions of family, of friends, of
social obligations – are often thebuttresses of a rich emotional life.
An isolated individual, free of all
constraints, would hardly be happy.
That’s why we dread loneliness.
Certainly, children cost in terms
of time, money, sleep and anxiety.
They stop you partying, affording a
holiday, even reading a book. They
also bring great pleasure and joy.
There is nothing wrong with
not having children, though that
imposes its own burdens. There
is, however, everything wrong
with viewing children as mere
constraints upon our lives. @kenanmalikFeudal relic:
the Duke and
Duchess of
Sussex.
Photograph by
Samir Hussein/
WireImageON OTHER PAGESCan fl ights be made carbon neutral?
Focus, page 42