Royals: Queen is more modern than woke Meghan Markle

Queen Elizabeth II and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, attend the opening of the Mersey Gateway Bridge, in 2018.

When the 1969 Super Bowl pitted the New York Jets against the Baltimore Colts, it screamed old vs new: the established National Football League vs the upstart American Football League, Johnny Unitas vs Joe Namath, black high tops and a crew cut vs white cleats and long hair. Like the young Wordsworth, I was on the side of revolution.

But the intervening half-century has brought a shift in sympathies. Once I horrified my daughters during a family viewing of The Sound of Music by announcing I was rooting for the Baroness. So when it comes to this second Declaration of Independence — the announcement by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex that they intend to trade in ribbon-cuttings and royal tiaras for the New World and celebrity — yours truly finds himself all-in for Queen Elizabeth II.

In this drama the big question is whether an American actress can succeed in doing what Oliver Cromwell, several popes, Guy Fawkes, the Nazis, Wallis Simpson, modern republicans and others have failed to do over a thousand-year history: bring down Britain’s monarchy.

Probably not. On Tuesday, the Queen, Prince Charles, Prince William and Prince Harry met to hash out the details of the Sussexes’ instagrammed abdication. The Queen’s statement suggests that she’s prudently rejected a hard Megxit (the severing of all royal ties) for a soft Megxit (some lesser royal role and a transition period in which the couple would split their time between the UK and Canada).

Much as we Americans may follow the royals and ooh and aah on tours of Buckingham Palace, our history inclines us to regard hereditary monarchy as an aberration in a free and democratic society. Certainly George III proved an obstacle back in the day. Seldom do we ask how it is that Britain could bequeath the world a workable liberalism that didn’t lead to instability and the guillotine.

Long ago the British royals ceded all direct power to Parliament. Precisely in being freed from politics — in leaving its dirty work to politicians — the Queen now serves as a brake on democratic excess, just as democracy acts as a brake on the crown. In a 2010 article for First Things, David Bentley Hart noted the delicate balance:

“The ideal king,” he wrote, “would be rather like the king in chess: the most useless piece on the board, which occupies its square simply to prevent any other piece from doing so, but which is somehow still the whole game.”

In this sense Elizabeth has been the perfect constitutional monarch. She keeps above the political fray. She puts on a good British face to the world, even to foreign representatives she might despise, because that is what her nation needs. She happily attends local events in the smallest part of her realm.

A woke queen could not do this. Elizabeth may at times be mocked for her restraint and dowdiness, but those qualities are both reassuring and dignified. Indeed, even though the British elect their politicians, almost always they seem to feel more affection for their monarch than for their prime minister. And Elizabeth has done it without interruption since 1952, notwithstanding the private heartache and public embarrassment she has had to endure, including Charles’s disastrous first marriage and Prince Andrew’s association with Jeffrey Epstein.

Queen Elizabeth II delivers the Queen's speech during the State Opening of Parliament at the Palace of Westminster last October.

The Queen’s service might also inform today’s debate about liberal democracy. Plainly monarchy is not suited for the US, given our history. But liberalism is not one-size-fits-all. And against those who argue that modernity has overtaken the monarchy, in Britain the crown is one of those enduring institutions — along with church and family — to which liberalism must look for the social cohesion and cultural capital it needs to thrive but cannot itself create.

As British society fragments and Merry Old England gives way to a far more religiously and racially diverse United Kingdom, the Crown offers something to unify people. Some defenders of the Duchess of Sussex now suggest that it was British racism that did her in. The truth is that the diversity Meghan Markle brought the royal family by marrying into it was cheered and celebrated.

The duke and duchess make for easy ridicule with their talk about a “more progressive” role while crassly trademarking the brand “Sussex Royal”. But not everyone is cut out for a life of service and sacrifice. Their self-indulgence only underscores the good news, which is that the couple in line for the throne — Prince William and his wife, Kate Middleton — appear to understand what’s expected of them and accept it.

In their yearning to break free, the Sussexes speak for all those forever banging on about how the monarchy “stuck in the past.” But what if the real lesson from Elizabeth II’s nearly seven-decade reign is about what it takes to hold a free, diverse and modern nation together?

The Wall Street Journal