Storm in a royal teacup

But it’s become a perfect storm for the head of the Commonwealth

In their interview with the celebrity TV host Oprah Winfrey Prince Harry and Meghan complained they were hounded out of Britain by racist sections of the British tabloid press, but what came as a shock to people were baseless allegations of racism against the royal family.

The British tabloid press is notoriously jingoistic and racist, and they never forgave Meghan for being an uppity American woman of colour who married her prince. If proof were needed of their racism Alistair Campbell, Tony Blair’s communications director, confirmed it on the BBC last week and he knows what he is talking about.

Campbell knows Prince Harry from when he was a young boy and had to cope with the tragic death of his mother. It was Campbell who coined the term People’s Princess uttered by Tony Blair about Harry’s mother Diana, Princess of Wales after she was killed in a car crash in Paris in 1997. He was a key figure in salvaging the reputation of the royal family from the fall-out of Diana’s death and understands the British tabloid press better than anyone.

Harry and Meghan’s accusations against the Palace, however, do not hang together. Their claim that the title of prince was withheld from their son Archie because of the colour of his skin is absurd.

Archie was not made a prince because of a policy decision made by George V in 1917 that had nothing to do with the colour of anyone’s skin and everything to do with the war against Germany and the Russian revolution. The king changed the royal family’s surname from the German Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to Windsor and then drew a line about who should be accorded the title of prince among descendants of the monarch at any given time in order to preserve the monarchy. He decided to limit the title of prince to grandchildren and exclude great-grandchildren, except the eldest son of the eldest son of the next in line to the throne.

Being the grandchildren of the present monarch William and Harry are princes as of right and so would Prince Harry’s son Archie be once Charles becomes king, as he would then become the grandson of the monarch.

The queen could have bestowed on Archie the title of prince when he was born as she did with Prince William’s two younger children, but William’s children are not the proper comparators as he is first in line to the throne next after Charles. The grandchildren of Princess Anne and Prince Andrew are the proper comparators, and none of them has the title of prince or princess; so there could have been no reasonable expectation that Prince Harry’s son was to be made a prince at birth.

Meghan also complained about security for Archie. Obviously, there is a pecking order but it beggars belief that the royal family would withhold proper security to the grandson of the heir to the throne whether he has the title of prince or not. That said, the couple have had to arrange their own security in America, which I have to say is a bit mean of the British state.

Harry and Meghan conflated the withholding of the title of prince and Archie’s security while they were in UK in tandem with alleged racist tittle tattle among members of the royal family, and jumped to the conclusion that Archie suffered different treatment because he is of mixed race.

Meghan said that when she was pregnant, Harry had told her there had been “concerns and conversations about how dark the colour of his skin might be when he is born”. She refused to be drawn on the identity of the members of the royal family involved, but it was clarified later that it was not Queen Elizabeth or the Duke of Edinburgh.

Oprah Winfrey affected shock horror at the revelation, but it would be astonishing if she did not know beforehand that Meghan would spill the beans on the royal family. Harry joined the interview after his wife made the allegation about racist tittle tattle which struck me as very odd. Why make the allegation based on hearsay when we could have heard it from the horse’s mouth to begin with?

The queen commented on the allegation about racism saying it was of great concern and taken very seriously, although she also said that recollections vary about what was said by members of the royal family regarding Archie’s skin colour. This is a polite way of saying either that Harry misinformed Meghan or that they twisted what was said to suit their current narrative.

Yet, it would be surprising if the royal family avoided the topic of Archie’s appearance as if it were the proverbial elephant in the room no one wants to talk about. The fact is that Harry married a mixed-race woman, and it was natural that family and friends would be curious about what their baby would look like when it arrived but it would be wrong to assume that talk about the colour of their child would have been negative rather than benevolent.

It is not the royal family but the British state that has a case to answer for allowing the British tabloid press to persecute Prince Harry and his young family out of Britain by the character assassination of his wife for no reason other than she is of mixed race. Okay, she may be a bit manipulative and bossy but so what?

After Diana was chased to her death by press photographers, the British state should have put laws in place to protect members of the royal family from press intrusion. Freedom of the press does not include freedom to cause their death or drive them to suicide ideation or force them to flee the country.

As Prince Harry said, he did not choose to be a royal. He is a former captain in the British Army who fought for his country and is entitled to protection and respect for himself and his wife, and needs time and space to process the death and funeral of his mother.

Alper Ali Riza is a queen’s counsel in the UK and a retired part-time judge