Meghan Markle Is Not Enough
British royal weddings always attract attention, but the marriage of Prince Harry to Meghan Markle had a special attraction: For the first time in the 1,200-year history of the monarchy, a woman with African ancestry has married a prince of the blood. Harry is sixth in line to the throne, so if there were a series of unfortunate deaths, his mixed-race wife could become queen, and mother to a mixed-race monarch. For many, this was cause for great joy.
When you got little white girls in Wales saying, ‘I want to be like Meghan,’ there’s a shift worldwide that white male supremacy is on its last breath. When you have little white girls in Arkansas look up and say, ‘I want to be beautiful and smart like Michelle Obama. I want to dress like the Obama girls,’ that’s where white supremacy is questioned. White parents in their living room say, ‘We’ve got to do something.’ That’s what Trump played on. ‘We’re losing control of our own children.’
It would be astonishing if Al Sharpton actually knew of white people who say or think those things, but all proper leftists are mind-readers.
Newsweek’s Katherine Hignett called Rev. Sharpton’s comments a “message of hope.” The message, of course, was not one of hope but of spite. “They’re losing their minds because the world is passing away where they are the standard, where they decide what is beauty, where they decide what is of intellectual depth,” said Rev. Sharpton.
The British monarchy has always been exclusively white. It is a bloodline that produces the head of state not just for the United Kingdom, Canada, and New Zealand, but for a number of non-white countries such as Jamaica and the Bahamas. Because of its antiquity, the history of the Commonwealth, and the grandeur of its Empire, British royalty has a global appeal unmatched by any other reigning dynasty.
If the monarchy were not exclusively white, no one would have cared if a black woman married into it. There is nothing notable about black royals as such. Few, including blacks, care about the monarchy of Swaziland, whose king has more real power than Queen Elizabeth. King Goodwill Zwelithini of the Zulu nation likewise has considerable political influence in South Africa, but almost no one outside the country has heard of him. There are actually several hundred African “kings,” but they have practically no political or cultural relevance. Many served as political scenery when, three years before his overthrow, Muammar Gaddafi put on a ceremony in which he was anointed “King of Kings.”
Implicit in Rev. Sharpton’s comments is an acknowledgement that when it comes to royalty, the white British monarchy is the “standard;” Rev. Sharpton appears to take pleasure in seeing that standard subverted. The transformation of a divorced American actress into Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, strikes at the heart of the British monarchy. If anyone can become a member of the House of Windsor, Kim Kardashian might as well become queen.
Edward VIII was forced to abdicate when he insisted on marrying a white American divorcee, Wallace Simpson. Today, an heir to the throne can marry a non-white American divorcee—to the apparent joy of the United Kingdom and with the queen’s blessing, which is a requirement for the top six royals in line to the throne.
Prince Harry may have married for love. The queen or her advisers may have believed a dose of “diversity” would improve the monarchy’s image among non-whites. But is this not like other ancient institutions such as the Catholic Church, which thinks it is gingering up its image with guitar solos during mass, only to find members drifting away to more traditional offshoots? People who admire the monarchy want tradition, not subversion.
Bishop Michael Curry, the black head of the Episcopalian Church in the United States, played the perfect subversive. He used his speaking slot at the wedding to bemoan the history of slavery and asked that we “make of this old world a new world.” Royalists like the old world, not the new. Bishop Curry also quoted Martin Luther King Jr., an ironic choice for a wedding, considering King’s inveterate adultery. While Bishop Curry uses the church and its distinguished past to boost his own profile, Episcopalians are disappearing. Last year, the church lost almost 35,000 members and dozens of parishes. High church Protestantism centered on Anglo-Saxon traditions can’t survive leaders for whom those traditions are alien.
The British monarchy can’t either. More alert leftist writers recognized the crown was undermining itself. For example, black pundit Melissa Harris-Perry explained the real undercurrent of the ceremony: “With this ring I thee wed and declare ‘the sun has set on the British flag.’ ” She interpreted the ceremony as a kind of vengeance by the former colonies, with Harry and Meghan having “intentionally subverted” a royal wedding’s real purpose: to expand and glorify the realm.
Some pointed to the non-traditional bride as proof that the monarchy can evolve. Black Guardian columnist Gary Younge wrote that it proved “the opposite” because “the fact that [interracial weddings and wives with university degrees] are remarkable at this level of the aristocracy is itself remarkable.” In other words, what others saw as proof of evolution was such a minimal sign of change that it was proof of rigidity.
Peter Tatchell argued in the Spectator that the fact there will be no black head of state “for the foreseeable future” is a problem that must be solved. Parliament should take action to “open the position of head of state to citizens of all races and cultures, as befits a democratic multicultural society.” Why limit the job to citizens?
British journalist Reni Eddo-Lodge, author of “Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People About Race,” dismissed the wedding as “not democracy” and “not Britain’s Obama moment.” Why would Britain want “an Obama moment”? Many believed our “first” black president would move the United States beyond racial tension. Instead, it got worse. The admission of a biracial commoner into the House of Windsor won’t end accusations that the monarchy is racist. It will only intensify demands that royals more aggressively confront their racist, imperialist past.
“The royal family is perhaps the most identifiable symbol of whiteness in the world,” said Professor Kehinde Andrews, a black British academic. He argued that the wedding is not progress, but a distraction from the “racism that is at the root of British society.” In other words, don’t let what seems to be a step toward equality fool you. Elsewhere, as Prof. Andrews explained, “The [Windsor] family is a symbol of racism, but it’s also really racist.” Whites can never do enough.
The royal family will now have to take ever increasing steps to “diversify.” As it becomes more “diverse,” it will also become less prestigious and important, less of a global “standard.” As with Barack Obama’s election, each new victory for “diversity” prompts further demands. Ultimately, egalitarianism requires that the family become fully mixed or entirely abolished. The process may begin soon; royal protocol requires that the Duchess of Sussex stop promoting her political views, but if she remains silent, she will be accused of cowardice. Either way, the effect will undermine the monarchy.
Should we care? The Queen did nothing to prevent the massive demographic change of the last decades. One of her few interventions in politics was to pressure Margaret Thatcher into supporting sanctions on white-ruled South Africa in 1987. The United Kingdom is rapidly becoming Islamic, and the Queen has done nothing to “defend the [Christian] faith,” as her coronation oath requires. She has also presided over the loss of liberties. Britain is arguably the most repressive country in the Western world, with the recent detention of Tommy Robinson drawing international condemnation.
Traditionalists should value monarchy. A monarch can be an inspiring symbol of a people, and it is a standing insult to egalitarianism. But the British royal family is a declining dynasty that has chosen to become a celebrity brand rather than a symbol of a people. The House of Windsor could lead a rebirth of national identity or continue to subvert it. Choosing the latter won’t help it survive. The royal family will learn soon enough that the logic of “diversity” is total dispossession, that an institution becomes sufficiently “diverse” only when whites are fully displaced.