Royals: The Tainted History And The Brighter Future
The royal family has a convoluted existence: their identity is made up of perceived grandeur and a history of pain, power, and political manipulation. According to the official website of the royals, one of the most important roles of the royal family is to help “strengthen national unity and stability.” Whilst this might be the case, it in itself births its own issues. The royal family represent a deeply historic and colonial version of what it really means to be British. The royal family are placed at the top of the British “hierarchy” by their sheer existence, and it follows that they subconsciously act as an example of what British people are like, how they should act, and most importantly how British people look. This creates a divisive environment and often unintentionally provokes dangerous acts of othering. This was most evident with the arrival of Meghan Markle…
For centuries, seeing solely white faces representing what it means to be British has invalidated and silenced the lives and experiences of many millions of non-white people and communities who live their lives in Britain today, and who consider Britain to be their home. The royal family are an extremely dangerous reminder of the prevalence of white superiority that was rife throughout their reign centuries before. Whilst their acts and presence may be consistent, their lack of evolution with the times of their country does nothing less than uphold ideas of white supremacy. Whilst it is understandable that their family line remains somewhat white, due to their familial heritage and direct lineage, what must be questioned is the deeper reasons that those who marry into the royal family are not people of colour.
The Royal Family today acts on a platform provided to them by the horrific, divisive and invasive acts committed during the reign of the British Empire. Many of the divisive “cultural” systems we see today were a result of the British Empire; for example what we know as the Indian Caste System was nothing more than a way for the British Empire to “create a single society with a common law that could be easily governed.” What is often weaponised and preached as gospel by dictator type leaders today, and is the cause of much cross-cultural distain and hatred, was simply a process of recreating Indian identity to make India more susceptible to invasion and takeover en masse. Many of the battles today, and urges for ‘cultural purity’, are simply a snowball effect of the colonial rule many places like India were victim of. Thus, it can be said that the way in which the royal family continues to rule in the same manner as their predecessors celebrates colonialism and colonialist viewpoints.
Their existence as an “organisation” is therefore not apolitical at all – this negates their symbol of neutrality. There has been little to no change in the organisation of the royal family since the British empire’s power was at its height, therefore it is easy to believe that they have carried with them the opinions that the family was built upon all those years before. But life is not like this anymore and it should never have been that way in the past….we as a society have progressed and become more aware and thoughtful. It is only right that, if it must continue to exist, the monarchy do so as well – otherwise its role of supposed neutrality will become a tool for further discrimination and exclusion.
Whilst the royal family’s goal is to remain neutral today, there becomes a point where neutrality becomes negative: in refusing to speak out they refuse to highlight behaviours and attitudes that are simply wrong and unacceptable. By remaining silent on these issues, they are inadvertently accepting and encouraging such behaviours and opinions. This becomes dangerous and blurs the line between what neutrality really includes and omits and whether this really is the most beneficial way for the royal family to continue to work on unity and stability.
Meghan and Harry’s departure highlights, more than anything, the need for change and need to distance ourselves from our colonial past. Being political is natural; it shows you care, it shows you are aware and also that you want to make meaningful changes rather than performative change. In a recent message to Diana award recipients, Harry himself expressed that Meghan and he are “committed to being part of the solution” in attempts to do more and right the wrongs of the past. To be a royal is to be trapped within historical bounds and romanticised ideas of power – in 2020 we can see that being powerful is not simply reigning over others, but instead making real changes for and with the people long-term. Their decision, therefore, is justifiable – wanting to be apart from someone who dictates your every action is acceptable in all walks of life, except if you’re a royal. Why is this fair?
Whilst some may view their actions as childish and dramatic, they did what was necessary for them. To raise a child today sheltered from the realities of life, sheltered from understanding first hand, and sheltered playing their part how they wish to is to encourage ignorance. It is clear from the couple’s statements since departing the royal family that their goals are grand and progressive, that they plan for a future in which ignorance, silence and inaction have no place.
Some will argue that the royals are humanitarians and do much for humanitarian aid so therefore they are not inactive. The humanitarian efforts of the royals have never gone unnoticed. It can be said that humanitarian actions are inherently political; whilst basic human needs are not political, the reason behind the lack of resources and welfare globally is rooted in political issues. Surely, involving oneself in these conversations and efforts places you somewhere on the political spectrum. It seems that Meghan and Harry see and understand this. They understand the value of their voices and the benefits of encouraging discussions and uplifting those whose voices may often go unheard due to the systems that have been in place for decades. To reflect on the main objective of the royal family: to help “strengthen national unity and stability”, means that it is possible to bring the constraints of the royal family into question. How can you help to strengthen national unity and stability when you have no real understanding or experiences of it? Is it really possible to encourage stability from an apolitical standpoint when in 2020 political opinions, policies and powers cause much of global instability?
Whilst being a royal allows for your message to be spread and voice to be heard more often than most, it comes with its own baggage. It does not have an impact in all circles and is certainly not valued by many. The royal family is a means by which Britain’s brutal history can be masked with grandeur, and their humanitarian efforts, no matter their impact, provide a cloak to silence the truth that millions of lives were lost at the hands of the British Empire.
To depart from the royal family is to acknowledge this past and make efforts to inspire progressive change both as families and as social and political forces. Putting their names behind their actions allows more people to be heard, more opportunities to be had, and more lives to be changed for the better – there is no doubt that Meghan and Harry know this to be true, and there is no doubt that they’re using their new-found independence to do what really matters in our lifetimes and really become part of the solution.
Written by Di'mond Qai Sharma-Joseph
As a writer and multidisciplinary artist, Di'mond currently works within the arts, culture, and heritage sector in London, exploring the variety of ways the sector can become more accessible, representative, and engaging for all. When she's not working or facilitating Zine-making workshops, you can find her writing poetry, creating artworks, and bombarding her friends, family and strangers on the internet with articles and movies they will never read or watch. https://www.instagram.com/d_qai/ https://twitter.com/dimondqai