Guardian op-ed: ‘The slick Sussex brand’ looks a lot better than Brand Windsor

There was an op-ed in the Guardian making some noise this weekend. The column is called “Harry and Meghan are showing the royal family how brand management is done,” written by Gaby Hinsliff (a white woman). Hinsliff makes some good points about how the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s Netflix trailer reveals a photogenic, charismatic couple who excel at their brand management. Which is dreadful news for the Windsors, who are terrible at brand management. The past week has been perfect, honestly – watching Buckingham Palace deal with the Susan Hussey fallout whilst William and Kate flopped hard in Boston, against the backdrop of excitement for the Netflix series. Some highlights:

Brand Sussex: But, of course, this is the Sussexes as they want the world to see them: young and in love, happy and free, defiantly enjoying the fairytale romance that unleashed such baffling hatred in some quarters when Meghan first married into the royal family. After the death threats and the trolls, the pressures that left her feeling suicidal and him terrified of losing her, like he lost his mother, it’s not surprising that they are so anxious to take back control and overwrite the ugliness with something beautiful. They may be presenting a highly stage-managed version of themselves to the world, but isn’t that what royalty has always sought to do? It’s just that, lately, the slick Sussex brand looks rather better at it than the established market leader.

The Susan Hussey Debacle: It’s been another terrible week for the royal family, once again accused of harbouring racism within the institution after a Black female guest at a reception hosted by Camilla, the Queen Consort, said she was persistently questioned by a lady-in-waiting about where she was “really” from. A Black woman, invited into the heart of the family but made to feel profoundly unwelcome? Well, that rings too many bells for comfort… When it was only Meghan’s word against the palace’s about the racism she claimed to have experienced, she could more easily be dismissed as simply difficult, especially once she was herself accused of bullying palace staff. Not any more.

The Palace understood that the Hussey situation was bad: King Charles has, to be fair, spent years thinking deeply about how to modernise the monarchy, appealing to younger Britons at home and dealing with the painful legacy of empire within the Commonwealth. But the Firm now appears to have hit that painful stage of corporate evolution when an organisation knows it needs to diversify, but is aghast to discover that means it actually has to change, rather than making a few token adjustments and blithely carrying on much as before.

The problem with trying to excuse Susan Hussey: But Hussey was not most pensioners. She was a professional at work, whose role was to put every guest entering what can be an intimidatingly grand environment at their ease, and that requires the ability to move with the times. Every guest invited to the palace is there because their work is deemed important to the nation, and the institution is responsible for ensuring they all go home with a magical story to tell their grandchildren. Diversifying the guest list is commendable – no doubt there weren’t many Black women from Hackney on it when Hussey joined the court 60 years ago – but it isn’t progress if it means people turning up only to be insulted. Which brings us, inevitably, back to Meghan.

The palace needed Meghan more than she needed them: What this week has underlined, meanwhile, is that the royal family arguably needed Meghan more than she needed them. She and Harry were always a creaking Windsor brand’s best hope of renewal, its way into the hearts of a young, diverse, emotionally literate and politically aware new generation of Britons who still haven’t warmed in quite the same way to the new Prince and Princess of Wales and who recoil in horror from stories like this week’s. After all the dust has settled, Meghan still has her Prince Charming. The Windsors, battling against a future of dwindling cultural relevance, are still searching for their happy ending.

[From The Guardian]

I’m always surprised when I read pieces like this in the British media, although to be fair, it’s usually only the Guardian publishing unflatteringly honest commentary about the Windsors. It’s just a reminder that there are *some* people on Salt Island who get it, who see the larger issue, and some of those people are white. The worst thing that’s happened in the past three years is that the larger Sussex conversations became about race solely, that there was “royal racism” versus “the Sussexes are too woke.” The Windsors set themselves up for failure there, because now when anything racial/racist happens around them, it’s a callback to Meghan and how she was treated. When really, the problems are racism-plus, clearly – it’s not just these people are contemptibly racist, it’s that they’re incompetent at branding, at public relations, at appearing to be modern. When QEII said “après moi le déluge,” she meant it.

Photos courtesy of Netflix.

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

60 Responses to “Guardian op-ed: ‘The slick Sussex brand’ looks a lot better than Brand Windsor”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. phlyfiremama says:

    Glorious. Finally, SOMEONE understands WTF is really going on with the “not so impressive royal” Windsors. Commence the sputtering hand wringing!!

  2. usavgjoe says:

    I’m loving this!
    HM taking the reins of their lives away from the RF and the BM, giving them a what for… I can’t wait for the NtfxDOCU

  3. Bananarama says:

    Even The Guardian gets annoyingly snarky in some of their “opinion” pieces about H&M, I notice it a lot in the back pages with less frequent columnists. This one was featured heavily toward the front page/top of the website and Gaby Hinsliff is always such a great guest on TG’s podcasts, she writes a lot of really well done columns and is one of their more serious writers.

    Point being, the fact that this was written by her specifically and that it was placed so highly in The Guardian’s visual arrangement says to me they’re ready to back up this impending battle with real journalism, as they quietly have done from time to time with the really major things involving the Sussexes in the past.

    • GirlMonday says:

      Hmmm, interesting @banananrama

    • DK says:

      Definitely interesting! Thanks for this insight.

      As a result, I made sure to click over to the original article to show it some love 🙂

    • sparrow says:

      Hi Bananarama. Yes, I commented below that The Guardian is broadly supportive of H&M, but sometimes they throw a little grenade at them amongst the lower pages. I don’t mind, per se; I think they want to remain “open minded” but it can look barbed and attention seeking. There was one about a year or so ago, basically saying H&M should stop going on about wanting to do stuff and just do it, and how boring it was waiting for them to get to work and cease the moaning. The Guardian is the first paper I read online, always has been. I like their reporting of media bias around H&M and media law breaking.

      • aftershocks says:

        @Sparrow: “The Guardian is broadly supportive of H&M, but sometimes they throw a little grenade at them…”

        Yes. Even in this article by Hinsloff, there’s some snark and some off-base assessments. The language used in the title itself I take a bit of issue with. I wouldn’t call M&H ‘slick.’ Polished, competent, savvy, prepared, to me are more apt adjectives. Meghan has always admittedly been an ambitious networker. But that’s a positive attribute because she combined it with genuine caring and compassion for others. She actively worked hard in her life and learned lessons which she applied to level up. She’s a striver, an achiever, and an uplifter. The media only wants to focus on the glossy, p.r. celebrity bits, not the depth and substance.

    • Isabella says:

      The bullying reference was snarky though. Makes it sound like Meghan was a bully and got called out for it. Never says who accused Meghan or that no proof was ever offered. The wording is weird. “once she was herself accused of bullying palace staff.” Well, that is not proof of anything. So why bring it up.

  4. K8erade says:

    With the Windsors in the UK, it’s all about ego hyping. They couldn’t care less about brand management. Even now, William and Kate are convinced that they won the US over when not a single person in the USA remembers that they were here (except for us because we’re laughing at them). Why? Because their handlers decided it was more important to hype their egos so they do more work. If brand management were important to The Windsors, Charles would have taken more care in regards to his affair with Camilla back in the 80s and 90s and spent less time getting pissy over a pen at his ascension ceremony.

  5. lanne says:

    All of us WOC here, and Meghan as well, realized that just by existing within the royal family, she would be a disruptive force. I’m glad that white people in the UK are starting to recognize that the problem wasn’t Meghan. The problem was a racist institution that might make some performative surface efforts at change, but fundamentally want to remain the same. Meghan’s presence brought their refusal to change into high relief. What I want the media in the UK to start talking about now is the effort to which the royal family attempted to push her out. I think that’s the fear of the ratchets and the royals–that their deliberate efforts to get rid of Meghan, by any means necessary, will be brought into the open. My guess is that there are a lot of people frantically deleting emails and scrubbing text messages right now.

  6. Becks1 says:

    Well, this was a good read.

    This is something the Windsors are getting so wrong. they keep insisting that they aren’t celebrities like the Sussexes, but they are, and like all celebrities, they have a brand to manage. And they are failing miserably at that. What is the Windsors brand? Service, unchanging, steady? Because the Waleses don’t really bring that out, if that is what they are going for. This is what we’ve been discussing over the past week (more than that, but specifically in reference to Boston) – the Waleses could not decide if they wanted to be boring and dull royals that no one really pays attention to, or if they wanted to be celebrities who mingle with the biggest stars in the world.

    It seems they want to be the biggest stars in the world but without doing anything to earn it, and that’s just not how the world works in 2022.

    As for this:
    “an organisation knows it needs to diversify, but is aghast to discover that means it actually has to change, rather than making a few token adjustments and blithely carrying on much as before.”

    I think this was part of the problem with a diversity czar or any kind of training or ANYTHING. You don’t just hire a diversity expert. They’re going to have suggestions for what you need to change and you need to implement those changes if you want to be…..well, less racist. but that requires effort and work and the Firm is not wired that way.

    • windyriver says:

      “You don’t just hire a diversity expert. They’re going to have suggestions for what you need to change…”

      Which is probably why they didn’t. Someone said (last week?) the palace did interview people for the position, before announcing 3 months later they ditched the idea. People interviewed would of course present ideas about what changes were needed. TPTB must have realized candidates actually expected to do more than “just making a few token adjustments and blithely carrying on as before” (like the palace did last week by dumping Susan Hussey). In reality, the diversity tsar position itself was one of those token adjustments; they weren’t planning any real change, just the appearance of taking action. So it was dropped.

      I wondered during the Lady Hussey furor last week how TQ’s attitudes may have changed over time as a result of knowing Meghan, meeting Doria (a woman with real class, unlike most of her family and the Firm), and seeing how completely happy Harry was. Both H&M made it clear the racist remarks about Archie weren’t from TQ or Philip. Meghan has said TQ was always wonderful to her. And I do think the corgis liking Meghan immediately was a big deal for a dog lover like HM, who supposedly knew right away the Sussexes weren’t come back, because they took the dogs to Canada with them! She was an older person who knew time ahead was short; why not let go of old attitudes, habits, and bitterness, and concentrate on what really matters. Harry’s probably the only one who knows the answer.

      • aftershocks says:

        ^^ Regarding QE-II, there are surely many reasons why she didn’t change or do more to advocate for M&H. Betty had already ceded a lot of her power to Charles, particularly after Geidt was forced out and Philip retired, in 2017 (a couple of months apart). Betty had never gotten directly involved with family matters in any case. She was old and ill, and she probably thought that signalling her approval of Meghan was sufficient (iconic group photo with Archie; taking care of Guy and publicly showing him riding in her car before the wedding*; taking Meg on the royal train to a public event with her; praising Meg for the tour to Morocco while 7 months pregnant). Of course, none of this prevented the jealousy and the media smear campaign from continuing to grow and to become out-of-control.

        * That may also have been a message or a warning by the Queen to whomever, about not letting Guy be harmed again after whatever happened that caused his legs to be broken shortly after M&H’s engagement!

  7. Emmi says:

    When the Queen was alive and Meghan came along, the family looked pretty good for a second. They were allowed to look a bit stuffy because they were all just there to group around her Liz, it was her show. Then there were H&M, signaling what was possible during the next phase. And then it all fell apart and Chuck, Cam, William, and Kate now all look AWFUL. From another century. The bookends are gone and what’s left is decidedly not modern, not on the inside or the outside. This documentary series is only going to highlight this and there is no crisis management that can change it. They were afraid that H&M would outshine them? Well, you f*cked around and found out.

    • Seraphina says:

      Agreed with all you said and how you laid this out.

    • ncboudicca says:

      @Emmi such a descriptive way of putting it. I totally agree!

    • Nic919 says:

      William and Kate are millennials and have no excuse to act so racist. There was always a generational excuse provided to the queen and Philip being out of date and even Charles as a boomer gets a bit of that benefit. But you can’t claim to be the young hip royals and also act the same as the older generations.

      They don’t get it.

      • aftershocks says:

        ^^ Well, W&K both lack character and work ethic. Both have been too coddled and misguided (Will by the institution; Kate by her mother) for most of their lives. Thus neither of them ever grew up, nor decided to attempt anything of value independently of the carefully orchestrated goals other self-interested entities have set for them. Despite the constant embiggening and their upgrade in titles, they are useless, and as C. Bouzy said of them, “aging like bananas.”

  8. molly says:

    W&K’s terrible social media alone is doing them no favors: YouTubes channels that go dormant for months, posts with embarrassing typos, threads that stop at 2/3 for no reason, random holiday acknowledgements that are lazy and immature, campaigns that completely miss the mark, etc. etc.

    The whole RF is very much stuck in the “a photo of a royal in a coat shaking hands at the door is all you need!” style of promotion, and it’s indeed killing them.

  9. CheChe says:

    I tire of the stories that state the royal watchers now realize the star power of the Sussexes. Harry and Meghan’s first walk about was groundbreaking and new royal watchers were born. They had an “it “factor that just cancelled out the other royals. It was palpable how much new energy was put out by these two and it hasn’t gone away despite all efforts. Just glad the Sussexes now get to profit from their magic.

  10. girl_ninja says:

    The thing with Harry and Meghan being the better “brand” thank Bill and Keen is because they are authentic. They really do live to be better and to make the world better. They have been living this way MOST of their lives and way before they even met. While Bill and Keen have been spoiled, lazy entitled brats. Those two have done nothing but have babies, go on vacation, spend money and have affairs.

    Harry started a successful endeavor in Invictus Games and has fostered it as it has thrived. Bill didn’t start Earth Shit until years after and that was to compete with Harry. Meghan worked her WHOLE life and had the beginnings of a great lifestyle company in the Tig. Keen worked a few weeks in a store and dropped out of a marathon.

    The thing is, there is NO comparison between these two couples. PeriodT.

    • molly says:

      H&M are more authentic, yes, but also much less micromanaged. Who knows if W&K were ever affectionate or legitimately in love (I certainly hope so), but every moment of their marriage and life are determined and advised upon by the palace. Wedding day, birth of your children, who walks where, and the only physical contact allowed is a light touch on the small of the back and a chaste hand-hold on Christmas.

      I have zero doubt that there are entire meetings about the facial expressions captured in photos at events. Hell, her exasperated WTF face at an event was a whole day story! Will probably doesn’t, but I’m certain Kate practices all her At William Faces in the mirror. (“I support him”, “I love him”, “I chuckle at him”, “I’m serious with him, etc.)

      The Queen said screw it and used her RBF nearly all the time towards the end, but even if Kate wanted to (or could) be authentic to what she was thinking, the palace hammered that out of her long ago.

      • Lucy says:

        The chaste contract thing is theirs. TQ and Prince Philip, as well as KC3 and Cams have more public contact than that. I think William decided early no contact in public so it would be harder to tell when things went south.

      • girl_ninja says:

        Kate never wanted to work. She wanted a life of luxury and leisure and instead of working for it like Meghan did she married a horrible man to get it.

  11. Chantal says:

    What an interesting and well written article! Truth hurts and the brutally honest observations in this piece are sure to hurt many feelings.
    It’s the RFs’ inability and refusal to change and modernize that will be its undoing. They still think the Sussexes are their biggest worry. They still haven’t gotten the memo that they can’t control every narrative bc of the availability and influence of the various social media platforms and the 24 hr global news machines. Their shock and horror that the “peasants” actually talk back and challenge the lies they tell really says it all.

  12. Debbie says:

    The writer made some good points, but I wouldn’t say that the Windsors were terrible at branding. These are people who have historically plundered and pillaged for their riches, not worked for it, yet they’ve for the most part convinced people that they are “civilized.” They put out these stories that they never complain or explain but that’s all they do. Daily. That’s how they retain their privilege. I mean, they are filthy rich and live in palaces and castles (with golden pianos), but they’ve convinced the poor(s) to keep financially supporting them and bow for the privilege of doing so. If that’s not branding, someone better have that water inspected.

    Also, I think that oft-repeated word “slick” is doing a lot of work and betraying the writer’s sympathies; especially when, by contrast, she describes the Windsor brand as a “stable market leader.”

    • girl_ninja says:

      That’s just centuries of tradition and the brainwashing that comes with it. I don’t think it’s good branding.

    • equality says:

      It helps that they have themselves tied into the government so it is harder to dethrone them. And the aristocracy that wants to keep the status quo as much as the RF does are part of the government.

    • Debbie says:

      You may be right, @girl_ninja. I’d also like to know how Charles, to be fair/to his credit/Bless his soul (and all that hogwash), has spent yeahrs working on modernizing the royal institution with its problems of empire in the Commonwealth. Has he returned any of the Commonwealth countries’ treasures and artifacts? Has he paid any reparations? Has he even advocated for the Windrush generation? No? Then, good work Charlie. Let’s all praise him. God bless ’em, but I still say that taking a picture with a person of color in the background does not rise to the level of “modernizing.”

  13. Katie says:

    I really enjoy that this piece painted H&M as “young and in love” while another article highlighted earlier painted W&K as “entering their middle age years.” The two couples are nearly the same age. I also happen to be this age, so maybe I can pick up some pointers on how to give off that “young and ready to take on the world” energy of H&M.

  14. Sophie says:

    From a personal standpoint, I can understand the RF position. Harry & Meghan were a breath of fresh air. However envy is not a good counsel, & all of them decided to alienate H&M from the rest of the family & the public. What I really don’t understand though is why from a marketing perspective! Why would you want to take out 2 interesting individuals who are charismatic, photogenic and want to do a lot of good work? They are raising your profile, they are good for your brand recognition, they got people involved that wouldn’t otherwise do so, so I don’t get why you are so blind that you prefer them out rather than in!

    • AMA1977 says:

      Petty jealousy, the same reason that ol’ Chuckie blew up his marriage to Diana. They think that by virtue of being “The Heir” they should command adoration and popularity and because they are surrounded by sycophants and yes-men who tell them how special they are, they are PERPLEXED when people respond to the vitality, charm, and sparkle of the “lesser” spare/married-ins.

      William and Charles want to be beloved without being loveable and popular without being compelling. Instead of improving themselves when they’re caught short, they blame the people who naturally display those gifts and run them out of the family.

  15. Aimee says:

    The Sussex’s were the best thing to happen to the royal family and they threw it all away over petty jealousies.

    • sparrow says:

      Exactly. And Meghan could have been the best thing that happened to Kate. There must be something about Kate whereby she feels stronger alone, rather than stronger together. If so, she is deluded. She and Meghan could have been a supportive sisterly unit and worked to their strengths. As soon as I saw Meghan, tho, I knew there’d be no place for her with Kate. Kate is essentially a very jealous woman with little idea of how little charisma or ability she has.

    • Mcmmom says:

      Agreed – and while I know the US isn’t everything, to squander such a huge “in” to the American market is so stupid. To have a Black, American “princess” – anyone with an ounce of marketing sense would have seen that the opportunities were huge. Americans don’t want a monarchy, yet we do love a good fairytale and if they had played their cards right, Megan would have ingratiated the RF into the hearts of so many as essentially a Disney story come true. But no, they were too petty and too stupid to see that.

  16. Jaded says:

    The Sussex brand doesn’t just *look* better, it IS better from the inside out. You have two successful, focused, public service-minded people who have created a brand that works for all, a brand that appeals to a younger generation that is worried about the future of the planet. A brand that is caring, compassionate and wants to make life better for all of us, not just a privileged few. The Wails have not been able to get it through their heads that all their brand does is show, in stark comparison, how little they actually do and accomplish other than be mere figureheads — lazy, performative and nothing more substantial than cardboard cutouts. They show up dressed to the nines, do a photo op, then run back to their lives of incomprehensible luxury. *Crickets*. I seriously doubt KC3 wants to modernize the monarchy or the brand, it would mean drastic change from the top down.

    • Truthiness says:

      💯 Jaded. The brand is so much better inside and out, and the fact that it’s not an ad campaign, it’s authentic. It’s not a gown or green velvet blazer to put on at events and then put back in storage by aides. Concern for the less privileged, the ones undergoing great loss (fire, Uvalde) or the forgotten makes their brand ‘land’ as much as their charisma.

  17. Snuffles says:

    This how the monarchy operates according to their fundamental beliefs:

    1) They firmly believe they are genetically superior and ordained by God

    2) Hierarchy must be above all else, even human decency and compassion

    3) The Crown MUST WIN, even if it’s torturing and killing everyone inside the system

    This is ingrained not only into the family’s DNA but into the British culture’s DNA. None of the above aligns with a modern, multicultural society. And the are unable and unwilling to change. The saying goes “adapt or die”. They will (unwittingly) choose death rather than adapt.

    Harry (and Diana) were outliers in that family/system. Always were. Always will be.

    • Enigmania says:

      @ Snuffles THIS ALL DAY LONG …. as someone who won a scholarship to an elite boarding school (queen’s cousin is the president) to this very day, I STILL meet other people who went to elite schools expressing surprise I had a same level of education as them…. They ask the name of the school and then always says “oh yes, I have heard of it, it is VERY PROGRESSIVE ‘. TRANSLATION = “yes, I heard they let people of colour /people not from aristocratic background in”….

      It was very clear to me that unless you are a legacy student (family has a historical tie to studying there- normally British /Euro aristocracy) or you are from a powerful family of colour e.g. your dad is an African leader or somehow linked to the Crown/Empire in a favourable way, you will ALWAYS because considered less than…. This goes for anyone they consider nouveau riche such as daughters of Russian oligarchs of which there barely any admitted… (this is best illustrated by the episode in the Crown re Al-Fayed and his attempts to infiltrate their circles …)

      The situation with the RF is not simply about colour but about CLASS hierarchy…. You need to know your place no matter what you have achieved, no matter how noble your deeds (as the charity head Ngozi recently found out during her encounter with Lady Hussey waiting minutes of arriving at the Palace reception )

      There is huge competition regarding lineage and when your family attained its title and by whom it was bestowed …. It is archaic and backwards and anachronistic in this day and age….


      it is a downhill slide from here ….if Charles had been on the throne earlier, then perhaps something could have happened sooner… but alas, it is what it is

      • Waitwhat? says:

        I’d argue that the BRF is hardwired to resist modernisation. Its success in the past 200 years has rested almost entirely on the idea of tradition and family, wrapped in a cloak of mystery and based on the class structures of British society. Its very foundation is that its members are inherently better than everyone else in the country by virtue of entering the world through some kind of magic vagina.

        British society is still stratified by class but it’s a more complicated structure than it was in the 1950s, when Elizabeth was crowned. It’s also more multicultural and considerably less deferential. Even before the Internet the media had stopped being in thrall to the upper echelons of society – when Edward VII abdicated the papers held off on reporting it at first, but in the early 90s the Sunday Times serialised Andrew Morton’s biography of Diana. And since the advent of social media it’s been almost impossible for that same air of mystery to surround a famous person.

        Throw in a re-examination of empire, the move to decolonise many aspects of British life, a recognition of the need for diverse voices and for knowledge and expertise when tackling issues, and the BRF is a horrifying anachronism no matter how you look at it.

  18. amyb says:

    as Lizzo sang “You could have had a bad bitch …”
    The Royal brand can’t win with the Heirs constantly pushing their star power away. Boring Charles vs Diana and boring Wills vs Harry. The day the RF family realized they had another Diana in Meaghan (not Kate or embarrass y the Shein version Sophie) was the day her fate was sealed.

  19. QuiteContrary says:

    Genuine compassion will always win over performative do-gooding. Meghan and Harry really care about making the world better. Will and Kate are empty vessels — you can polish them up, but you can’t really make them shine because there’s no inner light.

    • Enigmania says:

      That’s it in a nutshell… and where the whole planet at in general… truth is no subjective.. if your actions are disingenuous, the youth are not having it…. In the good ol’ days when media was tightly controlled they could cover it all up…. Their true mediocrity…

      the future lies with those whose actions speak louder than words …
      And whose intentions uphold truth and hope and integrity
      and who support change and healing and march forward bravely taking hits for greater good

      H&M have the youth in the palm of their hand….

      It’s game over for the old guard…

      Harry breaking away from them was inevitable, no matter who he chose as a partner…
      The BRF are trapped in the rubble of a crumbling empire …

      it is inevitable no matter what they put on the front pages to smear this golden couple

  20. LeaTheFrench says:

    There are some pretty hilarious attempts at borrowing the H&M playbook for brand management – cf. the just released black and white shots of W&K trying to look glamorous and in love at the “award ceremony without awardees” from last week. I mean, it’s just embarrassing at this point.

  21. mazzie says:

    I think a lot of the royals don’t realize that the Queen is no longer there to insulate them with the goodwill she had with people.

    She’s dead. Their armour is gone. People don’t have goodwill towards them and I think they’re seeing this. Whether they’re hearing, listening and learning…. well.

  22. Kim says:

    Can you just imagine the alternative Royal UK universe if Megan and Harry had been allowed to fly? King Charles and Prince William might have been seen as more relatable. The Institution may have been pulled into modern times in a good way. It would have been wonderful. Perfect? No. But how much heartache might have been adverted, both within the Institution and any countries affiliated with it.

    Instead, the Institution is a prime example of shooting oneself in the foot to retain outdated and archaic ideals. I can’t unsee the shot of William and Kate in the Land Rover while visiting Jamaica. Totally appalling. Who in their right mind would have agreed to that?

  23. Mrs.Krabapple says:

    I think it’s a matter of whether the press wants to continue being puppets for the royal family, or recognizing that it alienates the rest of the world. They can double down and be insular among the white english royalists, or try to be global with their views, but you can’t be both.

  24. sparrow says:

    The Guardian is by and large supportive of H&M. Why wouldn’t they be; they are a well written paper for people with brains. There have been one or two think pieces that have sounded a different note, but I like The Guardian for that – it isn’t just one view, it is a nuanced view.

  25. Solidgold says:

    They will never modernize. A POC will not modernize the institution, a king/queen with views and opinions will not modernize the institution, the staff that run the institution will not modernize it either. They are archaic and the only way to modernize it is to dismantle the operation.
    If they want to last then they need to just exist and stop with the crazy PR antics. Stop trying to feed the media ridiculous lies about their lay about life. No one believes Kate is reading scientific papers or Will is managing a multi billion dollar duchy. lololol.

    • Enigmania says:

      All of our archaic institutions are being dismantled … it’s the times are living in… diversity and inclusivity and self-governance with no middle man is where it’s at.. for the greater good or forget about it… it will take a decade or two perhaps but something clicked into place post Covid lockdowns and what’s about to rise from thr ashes of these archaic setups is going to be FASCINATING… until the new world truly arrives, grab the 🍿

  26. Kath says:

    The whole narrative of “Harry and Meghan are flashy while William and Kate are hard-working and devoted to service” is HILARIOUS!

    The question people need to ask themselves is: if each of these couples wasn’t royal and didn’t have the eyes of the world on them, would they be devoting themselves to ‘service’ and charitable works?

    M&H – absolutely, as a lot of Harry’s work wasn’t even included in the palace circulars in order not to overshadow William. He’s been establishing foundations, hiking to the North Pole, hugging orphans, and helping kids and vets his whole life. Ditto Meghan, who was heavily involved with charities and progressive causes long before she even met Harry. We don’t even hear about a lot of their work (until someone spills the beans) because they do so much on the down low.

    W&K? Not a chance in hell. Both are incurably lazy and entitled and go out of their way to do the least amount posdible – and only if they know it will give them press attention.

  27. Emily_C says:

    This is the first Guardian op-ed I’ve read about them that didn’t say they were annoying, overly earnest (as if being earnest is a sin) American (oh noes!) California wellness gurus just like Gwyneth Paltrow. The first one I’ve seen that didn’t randomly bring Gwyneth Paltrow’s name into it, actually. So, tentative well done there, but I wonder how long it will last.