Now the queen said – but does the queen also have the last word? In the tragedy about the state and future of the monarchy in the British state, the head announces an analysis of the renegade grandson and his American wife, presented in an interview with Oprah Winfrey, was a family affair. In 64 perfectly polished words, Queen Elizabeth II shows sympathy for the couple’s concerns and needs. But for the brevity of her message, she also says what she thinks about a controversy in front of millions of viewers: very little.
Because it is not only about psychotic nervousness and potentially racist statements in the family circle about behavioral problems. The British monarchy has known for decades that these family conflicts are always about their existence, about the contemporary adaptation of the feudal system – and ultimately about the question of whether genetic chance can decide the occupation of the head of state.
The question is as equitable as the unsatisfactory answer: How do you improve an institution that rests on a thousand years of history? The monarchy cannot be eradicated as easily as its adversaries would like. At its core, however, it is a normative one: a state can present an idea, but not a person who was born to be a leader.
Now the Duke of Meghan of Sussex has taken this interest to the present, which again seems very different from the reality his late mother-in-law Diana was supposed to experience. Those who question the monarchy today do so in times of extraordinary tension in Britain. Brexit divided the country into two camps, flirting with parts of Scotland and Northern Ireland more than ever before. Members of the Commonwealth discuss an elected president about the renunciation of the crown and contemporary constitutional construction.
Harry and Meghan shake up constitutional backdrop
Britain is also being forced to grapple with the complex issues of its former glorious past as a colonial power. An understanding of integration, racism, and history is accompanied by this catalog of modernization, as well as an understanding of the class on which the state and, above all, the monarchy are based. Thus state-building with the head of the queen is confronted with an understanding of modernity that may not correspond to it. If Elizabeth does not live one day, the construction may collapse.
This is the constitutional backdrop that Meghan and Harry rocked with their interview. The background can still withstand storms. But this is a background. The family living in it cannot build a new building. This is the work of the British electorate and their elected representatives.