Over time institutions become living entities, and develop motives and incentives independent of their members. The British monarchy is no different. Meghan Markle alluded to the British monarchy as “the institution” in her interview with Oprah:
Meghan: So, there’s the family, and then there’s the people that are running the institution. Those are two separate things. And it’s important to be able to compartmentalise that, because the Queen, for example, has always been wonderful to me.
Markle mentioned “the institution” 7 times in the interview, often in the context of the institution’s indifference to her suffering. It could be interpreted as a rhetorical trick to lodge unfalsifiable accusations. But the monarchy is very much an institution and is emblematic of what happens in large organizations.
The British Monarchy as an Institution
You don’t have to get very deep into The Queen before you realize Queen Elizabeth serves the monarchy as opposed to the reverse. The members of the institution wear their service as a badge of honor, using it to justify naked nepotism and graft. The institution supersedes all, including personal happiness and relationships. Not only do members make personal sacrifices, but they offer up the hopes and dream of others as sacrificial offerings.
The concept of old entrenched institutions also shapes the dialog; their existence is taken as a given. For instance, Megan Markle was able to make this claim without anyone batting an eyelash:
Oprah: You know, we had heard — the world, those of us out here reading the things or hearing the things — that it was you and Harry who didn’t want Archie to have a prince title. So, you’re telling me that is not true?
Meghan: No, and it’s not our decision to make, right?
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: . . . even though I have a lot of clarity on what comes with the titles, good and bad — and from my experience, a lot of pain.
Oprah: Mm-hmm.
Meghan: I, again, wouldn’t wish pain on my child, but that is their birthright to then make a choice about.
(emphasis added)
In what other context would someone be able make such a claim of birthright? My son has magical blood with religious implications that entitles him to a title and money. Oprah didn’t push back.
The dialog around the British monarchy centers around relative triviality. Did Megan make Kate cry, or was it the reverse? Who should pay for security for the Queen’s great grandson? What is the medical state of Prince Philip while this interview was being aired?
But what’s not asked is the fundamental questions about the legitimacy of the monarchy and why it still exists in 2021. When the monarchy is defended, two common arguments are used:
Economic: The British monarchy brings in a lot of tourist dollars
Historical: The British monarchy is purely symbolic and serves a public distraction similar to that of the Kardashians in the US
The first argument may be true although it requires too much subjective analysis to be definitive. I would also question the premise that the government should be optimized for bringing in tourist dollars. There are plenty of profitable opportunities the government could take that we would right scoff at.
The second one is dangerous since it relies on customs and norms that may not hold in the future. If the last 5 years taught us anything, its that we cannot rely on norms as a moderating force. It is technically true that the British monarchy is very powerful. And technical truth is the most important kind.
These two arguments also ignore the cost of having large entrenched institutions.
The Danger of Institutions
Consider the following exchange:
Harry: Yes, but it’s . . . there is this invisible . . . what’s termed or referred to as the ‘invisible contract’ behind closed doors between the institution and the tabloids, the UK tabloids.
Oprah: How so?
Harry: Well, it is . . . to simplify it, it’s a case of if you . . . if you as a family member are willing to wine, dine and give full access to these reporters, then you will get better press.
Oprah: What do you care about better press if you’re royal?
Harry: I think everyone needs to have some compassion for . . . for them in that situation, right? There is a level of control by fear that has existed for generations. I mean, generations.
Oprah: But who’s controlling whom? It’s the institution. From our point of view, just the public. It’s . . .
Harry: Yeah but the institution survives based on that, on that perception. So actually, if you don’t . . .
Oprah: So you’re saying there’s this relationship that Meghan was speaking of . . . it’s like, symbiotic. One lives or thrives because the other exists.
(emphasis added)
The irony is that Harry wasn’t criticizing the monarchy’s practice of manipulating the press. It was a complaint that the institution didn’t use this power to manipulate the coverage of Meghan.
In what other context would someone be able brag about their institution manipulating the media? My organization is normally very effective in manipulating the media, but did not exert such control when my image was attacked. I’m appalled.
Sure, manipulating the press is great if its used to prevent vile attacks on people, but it’s not so great when it prevents reporting into child trafficking.
I wish Oprah allowed Harry to answer the question “But who’s controlling whom?”. Right after that exchange Meghan steps in to prevent Harry from saying what is entirely obvious but cannot be said out-loud.
Institutions evolve into complex organisms with their survival as their primary goal. You can shuffle around who’s at the helm, but with a large enough organization, the leader will serve at the behest of the organization. The older the organization, the more evolutionarily fit. For instance, had the British monarchy not evolved to ensure its survival regardless of the leader, it would have likely perished over its life of nearly 900 years. So naturally, the British monarchy will exhibit the worst traits of large old organizations.
I’m not an anglophile. I’m not even particularly interested in the monarchy, nor do I know much beyond TV, movies, a semester in Nottingham and now the Oprah interview. But I’m always surprised at the lack of critical thinking otherwise reasonable people apply to large entrenched institutions.
I wish people would be more concerned about systems as opposed to actors. Criticize the DNC or RNC rather than politicians. Listen to Eisenhower when he warned of the military industrial complex. And finally, rethink the need to preserve an institution based on colonialism, religious blood lineage, and a history of unelected control over a diverse populace.