The Archbishop of Canterbury says royal life is ‘life without parole,’ chaos ensues

Royal wedding

As we’ve discussed, the British tabloids clung to the Duchess of Sussex’s “pre-wedding” story for weeks following the Oprah interview. Her story was simple – she and Harry exchanged vows at home, days before the actual, official wedding service. She said something about how they got “married” before the wedding and heads exploded. It was clear then and now that she was merely referring to a private vow exchange with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby. Well, the British media have taken to bullying the poor archbishop now. He even released a statement saying that, derp, of course the official wedding was the one everyone watched, but he said he had a number of private, pre-wedding meetings with Harry and Meghan and he left it at that. All of which means that the royal commentators were just looking to jump on Welby over anything. Which leads me to this:

The Archbishop of Canterbury last night sparked a major backlash after he said being a royal is like serving ‘life without parole’ amid the fallout from Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s exit from the Firm. Justin Welby, the outspoken head of the Church of England, was accused of being ‘singularly inappropriate’ and ‘jumping on a woke bandwagon’ after appearing to throw his weight behind the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, who quit royal duties and moved to California last year to strike out on their own.

In a wide-ranging interview with the Financial Times, the 65-year-old Anglican suggested the British public have unrealistic expectations when it comes to the royals. Royal experts have now accused the archbishop of trying to make amends with Team Sussex as he told the Financial Times: ‘It’s life without parole, isn’t it? If you go back to the 1930s, Edward VIII – he was still a celeb and followed everywhere once he’d abdicated. We expect them to be superhuman.’

Critics slammed the archbishop’s ‘parole jibe’ and suggested that the head of the Church ‘would be better off finding ways to increase his flock by getting people back into churches after the pandemic’. Speaking to MailOnline, Dickie Arbiter, the Queen’s former press secretary, thundered: ‘I find it extraordinary that he would compare service to parole. I’m not sure what he means. Is he suggesting that being a royal is a jail term?’

Richard Fitzwilliam, a royal commentator and former Editor of International Who’s Who, accused the archbishop of putting his foot in his mouth and claimed he was trying ‘to show as much sympathy with Harry and Meghan as he can, especially since he has had to deny having them married twice’. Royal author Phil Dampier blasted the clergyman for ‘tending to stray into politics’ and accused him of ‘jumping on a woke bandwagon which he might think will attract younger people to the church’. He warned that Mr Welby’s comments ‘will certainly raise eyebrows among older churchgoers’.

Royal commentator Rob Jobson accused the outspoken Archbishop of Canterbury of being ‘a little clumsy with his words’ and ‘sure to irritate’ senior royals. ‘I think he was trying to emphasise what being Queen and royal involves,’ Mr Jobson said. ‘But coming on the back of Harry saying Charles and William are ‘trapped’ by the system, Welby’s remarks are sure to irritate’.

[From The Daily Mail]

Honestly, the piece goes on and on. They contacted every old fart royal commentator and all of them had their knickers in a twist about the very suggestion that life amongst the grim-faced, back-stabbing, personality-disordered royal family is perhaps akin to a jail sentence. Considering the mounds of salt over there on Bitter Island over Harry and Meghan being hot, successful and free, I guess these people consider the Sussexes their prison escapees. That actually fits perfectly, which means the Archbishop was speaking the truth.

Royal wedding

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

40 Responses to “The Archbishop of Canterbury says royal life is ‘life without parole,’ chaos ensues”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Cessily says:

    I was truly surprised and glad to see him speak out. Someone needed to.

  2. L84Tea says:

    The truth hurts. It hurt when Harry said it, and it hurts now. Royalists really do not like having the truth pointed out to them. They literally cannot handle it.

    • Cecilia says:

      They think of the BRF as some fairytale and foam at the mouth of anybody describing it otherwise. They really need a good headscratch because so many people have come forward with the same stories. Diana, Fergie and now meghan.

      • Golly Gee says:

        The fact that the royal commentators are so up in arms about his comments are also because they don’t want a light being shone under the rock that they inhabit and their part in making royal life feel like jail. If they are not the jailers, then they are at least the vicious guards who make the jail more intolerable. The royal family is terrified of them and continually throw each other under the bus in order to appease the insatiable beast a.k.a. tabloid media. The RF have to guard their every public move, word and facial expression because of how it will be spun.

  3. Lauren says:

    It is a jail sentence. A golden, gilded prison, but for life. Harry and Meghan escaped and they are thriving far away from those fools, showing the world that royal life is not all fun and roses.

  4. JT says:

    Where is the lie? If you are not the monarch or the heir, the monarchy is not that great. You have to bow and scrape for any nugget passed your way, your livelihood is determined by everyone else except you, and you’re expected to give up any sort of happiness for the firm. Any sort of “love” given is purely conditional, only designated if you flagellate yourself on your knees. Even all of the privileges don’t seem to be worth the trouble. The crown only protects the crown.

    All of these rats are speaking as if they know what it’s like on the inside, but they’ve only got their faces pressed against the gates trying to get in.

    • Mac says:

      Meghan was denied mental health treatment because it would be a bad look for the firm. Who would want to live that life?

  5. Lemons says:

    I’m confused. They want to make us believe that being royal is dedicating your life to service, to the grim daily duties of “helping the people.” That they are not allowed emotion or compassion or great love because they are ROYAL. But then, when someone close to them actually says, “Yeah, it’s a shiite job.” They scream and say NOOO, being royal is cupcakes and candy canes!

    Which PR slant are we going with this month?

    • JT says:

      Even the royals themselves speak of their duty as a curse that they must endure for the people. How many times has it been said that the queen gave up xyz, because of her duty? They all speak of their royal work quite negatively if you ask me. Hell, Will-di Amin and Buttons Guevara had to be dragged and bribed just to do part time royal work.

      • L84Tea says:

        Seriously. How many times have we heard the word “burden” in conjunction with serving the crown? It’s come straight from their own lips!

      • BeanieBean says:

        Yep, just read an obit of PP on NPR News where it said he gave up his royal titles and naval appointments to marry the then Princess Elizabeth. They also described him as the ‘longest-serving’ royal consort.

  6. Mina_Esq says:

    They are accusing the Archbishop of being woke! That’s honestly hilarious.

    • Polly says:

      His predecessor Rowan Williams was always being accused of the same thing. The right wing press are always going on about the UK being a Christian country but they lose the plot whenever members of the clergy speak up on social issues. It hits a nerve.

      • booboocita says:

        The British press and upper class won’t acknowledge any Anglican priest who doesn’t bow, scrape, and toady to them. They want Pride & Prejudice’s Mr. Collins all over again.

  7. Amy Bee says:

    I mean, he’s not lying. But for the royal rota and commentators to admit that would lead people to question the usefulness of a monarchy and put the royal press out of work.

    • NotSoSocialButterfly says:

      Exactly. It would show them to be the taxpayer-parasitic, self- enriching machine that it is.

  8. Pétulia says:

    I quite agree with one commentator, he is clumsy with his words. But I understand what he meant. The RR are upset because more and more people have this view of the royal family since the interview.

  9. Snuffles says:

    He’s right, and he’s not the first person over there to make that comparison. It’s a gilded cage and they all know it.

    • Charlie says:

      Phillip didn’t even get to go out in the cage of his own choosing, having preferred Wood Farm . The Archbishop’s words are certainly timely.

  10. manda says:

    This whole thing is so stupid. Yes, someone from the church should have said that there was a little something beforehand like AWHILE ago, and it’s about time they did. I’ve been thinking for awhile that they could have straightened this out. But also, M (and I am a huge M fan) should have phrased what happened better. I’m not sure how she could have, but I remember thinking when I saw the interview that it seemed like she was implying the wedding was legal the day before or whatever. I guess she was thinking that specifying it was just the three of them was enough for people to infer that it was just a little private/not official thing. It would be funny if she could think of a way to “mansplain” herself to the british media because they just act so intentially obtuse all the time, like republicans over here. And there is nothing wrong with having a private little thing beforehand! This is just so ridiculous, I can’t believe the royal reporters get so gleeful and can’t let go of something so dumb

    • ElleEagle says:

      @Manda I still think that the Oprah interview was full of tidbits that the RR was holding onto, waiting for the right moment to spin. M stole their stories or from under them.
      If the press and the public have enjoyed being able to freely characterize H as a bastard his entire like (up to the present day) why not just find a way to undermine the entire legitimacy of the marriage, and say they got married unofficially, so that Archie can be a bastard too? I really believe that this was going to be the story.

      And Charles calling back his son’s (lifelong) security detail on a random weekday in, I think March of 2020? That was going to be a “bombshell” anti-Harry story too.

      The British press knew about M asking the palace for help re: struggling with suicidal thoughts: they’ve admitted that now. The press had the ammo it needed to characterize M as crazy, but they couldn’t figure out a way to do it without obviously admitting that the whole thing happened and she was deliberately denied support. Oh, and there was a possibly a GDPR violation to boot.

      • manda says:

        “If the press and the public have enjoyed being able to freely characterize H as a bastard his entire like (up to the present day) why not just find a way to undermine the entire legitimacy of the marriage, and say they got married unofficially, so that Archie can be a bastard too? I really believe that this was going to be the story”

        omg, that is such a good point! I had forgotten all about those stories.

    • Fawsia says:

      Girl please! Meghan wasn’t talking to those racist vampires and she doesn’t give a shit what they think!

  11. Sue Denim says:

    it’s kind of like the emperor’s new clothes, isn’t it? like it only survives if the illusion survives, but seeing it clearly for what it is — and isn’t — threatens to bring it all down… prob why H&M’s independence from it all is so threatening…

  12. Mia says:

    I was recently reading something about Freda Dudley Ward and David Windsor. I think it must have been in an afterward of some fictional book him and Wallis. But it made me pause and think.

    The author remarked how David carried a torch for Freda for many years and even after they were no longer romantically involved, their connection was one of strong emotional support/comfort. The author brought up how Churchill saw them together on the train once and remarked in his diary, “It is quite pathetic to see the Prince and Freda. His love is so obvious and undisguisable.”

    I thought it was such an unnecessary and cruel thing for Churchill to write. Like it really is something to have to constantly live a life and not give any clue as to how you’re feeling without people thinking something as normal and fine as human emotion is ‘pathetic’. They really expect these people to be statues 24/7 and devoid of any and all feeling.

    Reading that just reinforced why I won’t ever blame a royal who rebels against this micromanaging and wants out. The simple fact is that while some personalities probably thrive well in such a setup, not everyone is built for that. And when the only thing helping you get the top job is the chance of birth order and the thing deciding whether you get support for the job is if the firm/family like you, then the success rate is bound to be a hit or miss.

  13. Lowrider says:

    He’s still talking… someone loves the attention.

  14. K.T says:

    Ahhhh, old Dickie Arbitor & ‘Who’s Who’ Richard Fitzwilliams, the two royal writing Dickheads who were easily revealed as stupid, liars and bad actors in the roasting by the video: ‘We Prove Royal Experts Lie’. They even agreed that Meghan was anti-vaccine, ran a donkey shelter without a shred of shame!

    The fact that mainstream British legacy press and tabloids STILL quote them shows how unethical and morally bankrupt is the coverage of power and class in Britain. These terrible ‘commentators’ judging an Archbishop’s statements is like a convicted conman talking about the value of honesty! Lol. They’ve had a lifetime of working for the Queen, imagine the years of racism & spite. Abolish the monarchy & their minions for a better UK

  15. CJ says:

    I hope the archbishop responds with “LOL” and leaves it at that

  16. Tess says:

    If it’s NOT “life without parole” then why are they relentlessly endlessly ragging on whoever has chosen to leave?
    Call me crazy but isn’t the real bombshell here that the Queen/monarch is head of the church and when there has been “divinity” or “divine choice” attributed to the monarch he’s now saying they’re NOT superhuman which equates to ”not divine”? Why do they have to bring Harry and Megan into everything? He is just confirming, to me anyway, that the monarch/the royals next in line are just people stop expecting them to be infallible, because the next kings are Charles “I wish I was your tampon” and William. Idk when he released this but Philip died and the Queen is in mourning, so if she’s not mourning the way people want and if the funeral is the “wrong” thing it’s kind of like “remember that she’s human”.

  17. Sushiroll says:

    Mounds of salt on Bitter Island!!!!!
    What an absolutely perfect way of describing the whole sad mess that is the BRF.

    They also seem to urgently need some diaper cream for the constant irritation.

  18. Nic919 says:

    There needs to be a hard look at the obsession of certain British people over that family. It is cultish behaviour and when you have reached the point that you are attacking the Archbishop of Canterbury because you think he’s too woke, you have lost the plot.

  19. Greywacke says:

    The RRs are mad because they make up the prison and don’t like be shown a mirror.

  20. Elizabeth herself described the role as, ‘the intolerable honour’ of kingship.”
    FN: S. Bradford, King George VI (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1989), p. 229.

  21. Robin says:

    There is longstanding unease with the Archbishops and their Easter and Christmas messages regarding social ills, poverty and greed. They really irk the right wingers. With Welby the moral conflict is even worse. I believe he started in banking, so his messages hit home even more – once an insider and now a critic of their industry. On this issue of royal family life being without parole, he is right. M&H pointed it out and the rest of them have spent weeks saying it’s “nonsense”. Why the loud voice in response if it isn’t just so.

    • MsIam says:

      Any narrative other than the fairy tale impacts the RR bread and butter. People will question everything they write if the truth gets out. Plus taxpayers may start to question why they are paying to keep people living in misery.

  22. Emily_C says:

    How dare a commoner who obtained his title through work say anything not fawning about the royal family! My dear British cousins (culturally, not genetically): You need to get rid of not just the royal family, but the whole aristocracy. Living with that amount of crushing classism must be destructive to the spirit. It’s not like we don’t have classism in the U.S. — we certainly do, and it’s bad — but it’s not to this level.

    On a brighter note, he looks so genuinely happy for them in the first picture. Just as they look genuinely happy to by with each other. Like a normal wedding.

  23. Keri says:

    I find it amusing that at least 2 of the male royal reporters who were caught lying about seeing the Oprah interview are clutching their pearls over the Archbishop of Canterbury telling the truth. I love how riled up the press get when decent powerful people speak up for the Sussexes or agree with them. Contrast the people sticking up for the Sussexes vs. the list of famous idiots defending the Royals and you can’t help but laugh. The haters get so angry when it’s pointed out.

  24. Merricat says:

    We know what happened the last time an Archbishop of Canterbury told the truth.

  25. Well Wisher says:

    He is indeed a wise and observant person. I am happy that he was willingly to share his truth.