Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, March 9, 2021
Weddings are usually cause for celebration, and royal weddings are cause for national rejoicing. Even we colonials are fascinated by the British royal family. In 2014, when King Felipe VI succeeded his father Juan Carlos I of Spain, the crowds were puny compared to the commoners who rejoiced to see Prince William marry Kate Middleton. So many of us are children of the British Empire that when we say “the Crown,” we mean the British crown.
The monarchy is seductive, and there’s a temptation to defend it when leftists attack it. Thus, when Prince Harry married the divorced actress Meghan Markle in 2018, the glee many felt at the monarchy’s humiliation was painful. Al Sharpton called the wedding a blow against white supremacy. Black pundit Melissa Harris-Perry said it was an act of intentional subversion and the true end of the British Empire. The presiding cleric, the black “Episcopalian” Michael Curry, said we should “make of this old world a new world.”
The perennially hopeful thought is that integrating the royal family would help unite the United Kingdom. However, having ignored Enoch Powell and imported the American race problem, the British are learning that integration doesn’t strengthen an institution. It hollows it out and may even destroy it.
The very existence of an institution can be painful to non-whites, and with enough diversity, it becomes meaningless even to the people who created it. As Joe Sobran wrote in 1997, “Western man towers over the rest of the world in ways so large as to be almost inexpressible.” He added that other races still feel subjugated even after the end of Western imperialism. Furthermore:
The white man presents an image of superiority even when he isn’t conscious of it. Superiority excites envy. Destroying white civilization is the inmost desire of the league of designated victims we call “minorities.”
When Meghan Markle married Prince Harry, the Crown granted the former Suits actress the title “Duchess of Sussex.” This is an almost unimaginable honor for someone of her scandalous background. However, the Duchess now claims she had no idea what she was getting into and claims she hadn’t even looked into what the royal family was about before she agreed to marry Harry. After two years, the couple decided to renounce royal duties and move to America to be celebrities.
We’ve now seen embarrassing footage of Prince Harry negotiating with entertainment executives about his wife’s voiceover skills. The quasi-royal couple never concealed its disdain for Donald Trump. Last summer, the Duchess even supported ridiculous hate-crime claims from 18-year-old Althea Bernstein, who said four “classic Wisconsin frat boys” tried to set her on fire. After an exhaustive investigation, the police closed the case, saying “the attack, as Bernstein had described it, had not occurred.” Hers was about as plausible as Jussie Smollett’s tall tale.
In the honor culture that the monarchy emerged from, strength and duty justify power. In our modern culture, claims of victimhood are the path to power. Today, we’re seeing the conflict between victim culture and honor culture.
Queen Elizabeth II does her duty. She carries herself with quiet dignity. It’s her job. She never did anything to reverse the demographic transformation of her realm, but if she had, it might have meant the end of the monarchy. But if the sovereign can’t fight against the physical replacement of her people, there’s no point in having a sovereign. If she has failed, it’s because she held to her duty — never to take a political position — to the end.
Prince Harry’s approach has been different, but he doesn’t lack admirable qualities. He risked his life as a soldier for his country, and his partying and roguish behavior are modest by historic standards. Besides, it’s his older brother who is heir. Prince Harry had more freedom, but he had just one job: Don’t embarrass the family by talking politics.
He then married a woman who seems to treat the royal family as an ATM. The Duchess also understands that her (part) black skin privilege has more real power than any claim to nobility. She can call any criticism “racist” and rally journalists and fellow blacks to her defense. Prince Harry is now just some actress’s second husband.
Older forms of power are like the ritual of Trooping the Colour. The newer, more potent form of power was Meghan Markle (and her husband’s) interview with Oprah Winfrey. Miss Winfrey is another master at building power. Once a member of Jeremiah Wright’s radical congregation, she concealed her own racial grievances until her position was unassailable. Now, she lectures whites about unconscious racism and looks forward to generations of whites dying so that racism will finally end. A black billionaire used her massive platform to give a privileged mulatta a chance to claim she was a victim. Media power trumps royal prerogative.
The White House praised the “courage” the Markles showed by talking about their “struggles with mental health.” Well, what about the commoners? About 7 percent of British children have attempted suicide by 17, a rate that will probably increase because of COVID. In 2013, nine-year-old Aaron Dugmore reportedly killed himself because he was bullied for being white. There was no national reckoning. A 2000 study found that blacks have higher self-esteem than whites, but “anti-racism” campaigners said this proves British society is even more racist than they realized. The Duchess’s pleas for sympathy get a much better hearing than cries for help from British whites.
The Duchess made several charges. She said a member of the royal family worried her son Archie might be too “dark.” Who said that? She wouldn’t say. And so what, anyway? She complained that the Palace will no longer provide security to the family. Why should it? The Duchess and her husband have quit their jobs. Meghan Markle said that she had “suicidal thoughts” but was discouraged from seeking mental health. A stiff upper lip was once an admirable British trait. Today, the best way to deal with pressure is to cry about it on television. Prince Harry chimed in to criticize his father, the future king, saying he “let down” his children.
Why would the couple make these charges, especially with elderly Prince Phillip at death’s door? Intentionally or not, they are creating an independent power base. Louis Phillippe II, Duke of Orleans, tried to curry favor with the French Revolution, even changing his name to “Phillippe Egalité.” Mrs. Markle’s strategy is working; #AbolishTheMonarchy was trending on Twitter after the interview. Labour MP and black woman Diane Abbot asked whether the royal family had learned anything in 25 years and demanded “serious reflection.” Thirteen centuries of duty and tradition may not be able to stand up to one hostile news cycle; the debacle will probably spur republican efforts in Australia and Canada.
The true irony is that this story really is about the privilege of a sacred bloodline. That bloodline is Meghan Markle’s black ancestry. A wealthy white woman complaining that the press is mean probably would win no praise. If Prince Harry had married a white woman and then left the royal family, I expect we’d be reading sneering articles about entitled “Karens.” Mrs. Markle’s (light) black skin means that in intersectional politics, she can’t hold real power despite her fame, wealth, and title. The Duchess doesn’t enjoy the “white privilege” of a rag picker in northern England.
You can criticize the Queen even in the most vulgar terms and face no legal sanctions, but don’t criticize non-whites or you may be arrested. This shows what lèse-majesté really means.
If whites complain about dispossession or say they aren’t racist, it’s “white fragility,” but Meghan Markle’s sense of entitlement is heroic. One non-white columnist wrote: “Women of colour don’t owe England’s angry white men a damn thing. There’s barely one of us who didn’t get where she is today in spite of them.” She got it entirely wrong. Mrs. Markle owes her position to a white man who, before her, had an important place in an ancient British institution. After receiving this gift, she is contemptuous and resentful. And so we get the absurd spectacle of a black billionaire asking a half-black actress with a royal title who lives in a $14.5 million mansion about how hard her life has been.
The affirmative-action aristocrat Meghan Markle is simply an example of a larger trend. When the black classicist Dan-el Padilla Peralta achieved a prominent position in his field — full professor at Princeton — he then called for the entire discipline to be abolished because it promotes “white supremacy.” When non-whites joined the International Society of Anglo-Saxonists, they immediately set about “reforming” it and insisted that even its name was “racist” and had to be changed. When composer Nebal Maysaud became prominent in chamber music, he wrote a piece accusing classical music of being about “whiteness” and therefore “it’s time to let classical music die.” Michael Steele became the head of the Republican National Committee because, in the words of an American Conservative Union spokesperson, he was “a black guy.” Today, Michael Steele and other former black Republican “leaders” enjoy a steady rotation on cable news attacking the GOP for not welcoming blacks.
This is what happens when traditional intuitions are “integrated.” Non-whites welcomed with great fanfare turn on their benefactors. Joe Sobran is probably right. Blacks who suddenly “lead” something whites created can’t help thinking it’s foreign. They feel no duty or loyalty towards something their own people could never have built.
The foundations of monarchy are hierarchy and sacral order. Monarchy can’t pursue “equality” without destroying itself. Perhaps Prince Harry fancies himself another Phillippe Egalité, but he should remember that his democratic friends cut off his head in the end. If Harry has set in motion the abolition of the monarchy, there will be no reason to pay attention to Mr. Markle at all.
There is only one way to win the diversity game. Don’t play. You are racist no matter what you do. If you are a racist for keeping your institutions white, at least you still have institutions.
What of the Crown? I join with black Labour MP Diane Abbott in hoping the royals have learned some lessons, though not the same ones. I hope they have learned that affirmative-action aristocrats are poison. Diversity dilutes the Sovereign’s bond with her people. Royalty can’t compete with celebrities at being celebrities. The Sovereign — and everyone in her family — must be something more than celebrities. The Windsors must change, but not in order to “celebrate diversity.” They should rededicate themselves to their original purpose. Start by stripping Prince Harry of his title and letting him stay on as house husband to a voice actor. Don’t take him back when she leaves him — as she surely will.
The way forward is not modernization but Restoration. The Crown could become the unifying symbol of the Anglosphere by defending the Church of England, British culture, and the accomplishments of Anglo-Saxons everywhere. Andrew Fraser proposed such a solution in The WASP Question:
The monarchy must return to its original and still legitimate role as the voice of Anglo-Saxon history and Christian traditions; recovering WASPs [White Anglo-Saxon Protestants] around the world must pray for a Patriot King who, instead of abetting the divisions of his people . . . will endeavor to unite them, and to be himself the center of this union.
A post-Brexit United Kingdom could retain relevance by strengthening ties with the white nations it created, with the monarch as the unifying symbol. All whites, including non-Protestants or even non-Christians could take pride in this vision. Thomas Jefferson wasn’t much of a Christian, but had great pride in his Anglo-Saxon heritage and the founding stock. He even proposed the Germanic warriors Hengist and Horsa as the symbols on our national seal.
The Windsors are incapable of building such a monarchy. The palace will bunker down while the institution decays. I don’t think we have a stake in “saving” a monarchy that won’t save itself and serves no purpose beyond attracting tourists. The current ruling house proved its uselessness by letting the Markle wedding proceed.
If the Windsors are swept away as a result, conservatives, nationalists, and Traditionalists will no longer be blinded by nostalgia. Something new can be built. That’s better than slow-motion collapse presided over by a figurehead with no power or purpose.