THE biographer of King Charles has warned that the depictions of the behaviour of the royal family in Prince Harry’s new memoir “could mark the beginning of the end of the monarchy”.
Early publication of the Spanish edition of Harry’s new book Spare has led to several revelations about the family’s behaviour.
Harry alleged that his brother Prince William physically attacked him, and that he and his wife Kate Middleton encouraged him to wear a Nazi uniform to a fancy dress party.
Elsewhere, The Telegraph reported that Harry wrote that he had been trained by the Army not to think of those he killed as “people”.
Catherine Mayer, whose book The Heart of a King was also subject to pre-publication security leaks prior to its release in 2015 told The Guardian: “It is possibly something that will mark the beginning of the end of the monarchy, and that is what we should discuss.
READ MORE: Scotland should wean itself off Harry and Meghan's royal soap opera
“It is important, given the lack of trust in the state at the moment and an upsurge in right-wing politics.
“Members of the royal family have become our proxies for anger about racism, misogyny and wealth.
“This is, after all, an institution that stands for inequality, so there are huge things at stake.”
She argues that fundamental questions raised by Harry in a recent Netflix series and his new book are being dodged.
He is also due to give an interview with ITV’s Tom Bradby on Sunday.
Mayer continued to say that accusations of bullying, racism, and misogyny will eventually undermine the basis of consent by which the royal family rules if they are not addressed.
This week, a petition was lodged at Holyrood by Our Republic demanding the abolition of any and all exemptions in Scottish law which have been made for the royal family.
At the end of December, a Panelbase survey found that a majority of Scots want to see an independent Scotland become a republic with an elected head of state.
Mayer added: “There is a general misapprehension that this is a light story about a British tourist attraction. The polarisation on both sides of the row is styled as a defence of the monarchy, but it’s not that.
“This is not just a celebrity knockabout story. What we are talking about is the status of a significant institution of state, with significant powers and significant taxpayer funding, so whether you are pro- or anti-monarchy, it deserves to be considered seriously.
The author first condemned the tone of much media coverage of the dispute in a tweet on Saturday morning, saying: “It’s as if UK journalism, stung by #PrinceHarry’s criticisms, went down the pub, chugged 17 pints of lager top, and came out swinging, staggering and shouting ‘you think *that* was bad!? Just you watch!’ #Spare.”
Mayer added that the chance of reconciliation among the family was remote even before the book but said that there is “strong incentive for King Charles to initiate some kind of truce”.
“The extreme reaction, and probably confected outrage, when Meghan mimicked a curtsey in the Netflix documentary is a case in point”, she said.
“In fact within the palace staff, there is competition to see who can go lowest without falling over. So she was not being disrespectful. She had a point.”
Mayer suggests that part of the blame lies in the “layers of secrecy and obfuscation” which surround the royal family.
“It is intended as a defence, but it will defeat the organisation if they concentrate on the personalities.
“The whole family is meant to be an idealised reflection of the British people themselves and Harry’s marriage to Meghan made the job much easier.”
She added: “The failure of that project is absolutely catastrophic for the royal family.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel