Prince Harry and Meghan Markle Could Fly Commercial—But It Won't Stop the Backlash
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have found themselves at the center of a controversy during their summer vacation. Just weeks after Prince Harry boldly asserted that he and his wife would have two children "maximum" for environmental reasons in the September issue of British Vogue (and spoke on climate change while barefoot at Google Camp) he and Meghan are on the receiving end of criticism for flying on a private jet to Nice.
Harry, Meghan, and their baby Archie were photographed last Wednesday landing in France for a vacation at musician Elton John's house, their second reported use of a private jet this summer.
Critics—in the media, on Twitter—are calling the Sussexes out for hypocrisy. And much as we loathe a pile on, they might have a point. After all, Meghan and Harry receive funding from the British public, so the way they spend their money is a legitimate subject for debate. And they have been quite vocal about the impact each person's choices can make on the issue of global warming. "With nearly 7.7 billion people inhabiting this Earth, every choice, every footprint, every action makes a difference," Harry said in a recent Instagram post on the account he shares with his wife.
But this latest wave of criticism can't be viewed in a vacuum. It's part of an avalanche of intense judgment that the couple—and particularly the Duchess—faces about every aspect of their life. How Meghan holds her baby, the way she wears her hair, the ways she has (or has not) broken royal protocol—these are all endlessly picked apart. Not to mention the open racism she has faced in many corners of the press and internet.
The intense scrutiny of this particular trip seems even more out of line when you know the facts. Elton John, a close family friend, came to the Sussexes' defense yesterday, revealing that not only had he provided Harry, Meghan, and Archie with the private jet to fly to his home in Nice for a holiday, but also that the travel method was carbon neutral.
"To support Prince Harry’s commitment to the environment, we ensured their flight was carbon neutral, by making the appropriate contribution to Carbon Footprint?," he wrote, in a lengthy Twitter thread on the subject.
He ended with a request to the media: "I highly respect and applaud both Harry and Meghan’s commitment to charity and I’m calling on the press to cease these relentless and untrue assassinations on their character that are spuriously crafted on an almost daily basis." (Read his full thread here.)
Would Harry and Meghan have been better off flying commercial? They certainly could have tried it. Other members of the royal family have flown commercial before, to much fanfare. And these trips always make headlines because that is what they are intended to do. The point of a decision like that is to show how frugal the royals can be—they're just regular people, flying on a regular plane.
But Queen Elizabeth's family members are not regular people. That's what makes them interesting, and it's also what makes them valuable, not only for the British government, but also for the patronages they support.
It might well have made an impressive statement about their commitment to fighting climate change had Harry and Meghan flown commercial on vacation. But at what inconvenience for their fellow travelers? Plus, remember that they are desperately trying to give their months-old baby some semblance of privacy, which would have been impossible in a public space like that.
At its crux, this media frenzy highlights an inherent dilemma that Harry and Meghan will continue to face as they try to take on more ambitious, and at times, more contentious causes. What is required of them as royals is sometimes at odds with what they champion, and given how unrelenting the scrutiny of Meghan has become, any conflict of interest—or, yes, hypocrisy—will not only be brought to light but blown out of proportion.
It is highly unlikely that Harry and Meghan could ever give up flying entirely, without shifting their role in the monarchy significantly. Similarly, Meghan and Harry can never truly be radical in their activism because a political agenda is at odds with a position in the royal family.
Helen Lewis expertly honed in on this point in The Atlantic earlier this month. Lewis notes that the Duchess's charity initiatives can raise questions, but can rarely address the underlying systemic causes of a social issue:
All of this adds up to a form of activism in which there are problems, but no villains. Markle can talk about marginalized women who struggle to find clothes for job interviews—and the charity SmartWorks, which she supports—but she cannot address the causes of poverty. The cookbook she oversaw to help victims of the Grenfell Tower fire in 2017, in which 72 Londoners died, can raise money for those affected. But there is a tacit agreement not to engage with discussions about the inadequate cladding on the apartment building, overseen by the local council, which made the fire so lethal.
With the way the royal family currently functions, there is a limit to what Harry and Meghan can do. But in the end, would you rather have the Sussexes push the boundaries of what the monarchy can be and use their unrelenting spotlight to highlight causes that wouldn't otherwise see the front page of a newspaper? Or would you prefer that they play it safe, never step out of line, and not say much at all?
I, for one, think it's far more interesting to watch them try.
You Might Also Like
