Harry & Meghan: Susanna Reid shares thoughts on Netflix show

We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and 3rd parties based on our understanding. You can unsubscribe at any time. More info

Making a determined effort to slim down the monarchy would have avoided the problems run into by Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, according to constitutional experts. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex levelled a series of serious allegations against the Royal Family in the six-part Netflix documentary Harry and Meghan.

No-one from The Firm has commented publicly on the programme yet but it is thought to have widened the rift between the Sussexes and Prince William, the King, and other senior members of the family.

And Prince Harry claims the problems began when he says the Palace became concerned with his and his wife’s stardom obscuring the popularity of more senior members of the Firm, including the Prince and Princess of Wales.

Now, Professor Robert Hazell of University College London, who appears in the Netflix documentary, and his colleague Dr Bob Morris, say that they believe that making the monarchy much smaller would resolve issues.

Writing on The Constitution Unit website, the pair argue that the Royal Family suffered from “constant intrusion of the press into their private lives”.

They add: “They also lack free choice of career; freedom to marry whom they like; freedom of speech; freedom of religion; and freedom to travel.

“In all European monarchies the heir and others close in the line of succession cannot choose a profession or pursue a business career.

“The harsh reality is that younger sons are spares who are ultimately dispensable from a hereditary monarchy: it is only those in direct line of succession who count.”

And so Harry, who has called his forthcoming book Spare, is stuck with all the restrictions but without any benefit.

King Charles III is said to be in favour of having a much smaller core team of Royal Family members than there have been in recent years.

And the two academics say this would be a good step forward, and would be more like European monarchies where the “core team [is] as small as possible”.

They write: “The King’s plans to reduce – ‘streamline’ – the monarchy have wider implications. The Queen presided over the empire’s modification into the Commonwealth: a quarter of whose states – the realms – retain the British monarch as head of state. The King’s vision implies a further programme of change, toward a more domesticated, less international monarchy.

“Greater domestication could have implications for the careers and lifestyles of royal family members.

“Hitherto there would have been siblings and aunts and uncles supporting royal functions in the UK and abroad.

“In future they could be expected to develop independent careers of their own: like Princess Margaret’s children, although still members of the royal family, they could flourish as private citizens.”

DON’T MISS

Harry and Meghan pulled up on key ‘inconsistency’ over royal titles [INSIGHT]
‘They’re so brave’ Meghan and Harry hailed in US for being ‘genuine’  [REPORT]
Pope Francis admits he has ‘already signed resignation’  [REVEALED]

The authors of the piece on The Constitution Unit website state that the Netflix documentary makes it seem like what Harry and Meghan have gone through is unique to them.

But they argue that the difficulties they faced are shared by all the royal families of Europe.

They write: “It is monarchy which is unique, in the extraordinary demands which it makes of close members of the Royal Family.

“The public tend to think that royals lead very privileged lives, in glittering palaces with lots of servants.

“But in truth, it is a gilded cage, and because the benefits monarchy brings to parliamentary democracy can involve a high personal price, it is understandable if sometimes the more junior royals might want to escape.”

Source: Read Full Article