Peter Hunt

The ire of the House of Windsor is on display again. So too (more worryingly for them) is their impotence. Harry and Meghan’s latest public utterances have clearly rankled with the royals the couple have left behind. From the palace’s perspective, the pair have well and truly crossed a line with their comments about the US presidential election which have been interpreted widely as favouring the Democratic contender, Joe Biden.   In a video for the US magazine Time, Harry urged citizens in his newly adopted country to 'reject hate speech'. Meghan stressed that November’s poll was the most important election of our lifetime. She is no fan of Donald Trump. The President has made clear the feeling is mutual.

In the Nineties, it was a husband and a wife who used supportive reporters, friendly biographers and the global reach of television to extol their own royal righteousness, as their marriage deteriorated. Now, it’s the sons of Charles and Diana who are settling scores after the searing pain of a shared bereavement failed to lash them together for life. Harry is first out of the traps with ‘Finding Freedom’, which is being serialised in the Times and the Sunday Times. The biography captures his intense hurt that the people who are variously described as ‘the men in grey suits’, ‘the old guard’ and ‘vipers’, didn’t properly appreciate what he and his wife Meghan brought to the Windsor table.

Once upon a time, a speech by the Queen had the capacity to surprise. Only a handful of her trusted advisors would have been privy to its content prior to its delivery. Elizabeth, a Head of State who has thrived for decades by remaining above the political fray, didn’t use to indulge in extensive pre-briefing. Such tactics were the preserve of those who relied on the ballot box – not an accident of birth, for their position. This status quo is yet another victim of Covid-19. As we settled down to watch the monarch momentarily delay an episode of the Antiques Roadshow, we had a sense of what she would say. One fifth of the words she uttered had already been shared with the broadcasters and Sunday newspapers.

Farewell tours tend to be the preserve of ageing rock stars. Royals, cut from the cloth of Elizabeth Windsor, are meant to keep going until they are six feet under. Harry and Meghan have torn up the script that he received at birth and she on her wedding day. In under two years, they’ve gone from offering the royals a tantalising refresh to departing these shores by the end of this month. Their voluntary extraction has been painful for them and the family they are leaving behind. Both sides have made mistakes. The Queen and others will surely reflect on what more they should have done to keep Meghan on the inside; they don’t have a good track record when it comes to women staying put in the Firm.

The 'third way' of being a senior royal – representing the Queen one day, earning serious money the next, was always untenable. When Harry and Meghan first made public their desire to change the status quo they described it as a 'progressive new role'. Critics, better versed in the workings of an ancient institution than some of those advising the couple, dismissed it as a 'having your cake and eat it' approach. Given that the idea was never a runner, it’s striking that it has taken those who are still active royals more than a week to accept the inevitable. They clearly didn’t want this outcome but now they have it. They want to keep Harry and Meghan on-side.

Prince Andrew’s humiliation is complete. For now. Who knows what lies around the corner? Despite Palace protestations to the contrary – and they’re hardly going to say otherwise – it’s extremely doubtful there’ll be a role for the Queen’s son at the Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday; at the annual Trooping the Colour; or when the royals gather on the Buckingham Palace balcony during significant state and royal occasions. And the idea he can continue his Pitch at the Palace for entrepreneurs is a fanciful one. Businesses that normally flock to the Windsor brand are fleeing this particular representative. When the statement used the words “for the foreseeable future” read “for ever”.