I did not watch the live broadcast of Oprah’s interview with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, a.k.a. Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. I chose not to watch it for three chief reasons: 1) As the mother of a young child, the hour in question was reserved for putting the little one to bed. 2) I knew I would be informed of even the most minorly interesting developments within the next 24 hours.
3) Although I have an intense interest in British history, including the history of the monarchy, Harry and Meghan are chief representatives of that portion of the population (and the Royal Family) that prefers modern ways of thinking and behaving to the traditions and mores of old. Exhibit A: The duchess admitted to doing no research about the Royal Family before marrying into it. It was therefore not an interview with two members of a historic royal institution as much as an interview with two twenty-first century style celebrities. There is nothing wrong with that: Harry and Meghan can live their lives as they choose. However, it means that the history loving side of me is not as compelled by their ongoing drama.
Even so, as I have read news updates about this interview, I have found myself interested in one particular detail: a comment that has grabbed the attention of the international media.
In those months when I was pregnant, all around the same time, so we have in tandem the conversation of, he won’t be given security, he’s not going to be given a title, and also concerns and conversations about how dark his skin might be when he’s born.[1]
The Duchess of Sussex
Oprah was shocked by this statement. Clarification had to be issued that it was not the Queen or the Duke of Edinburgh who had made the comments. The conversations with Harry had been about “what that would mean and what that would look like,” in Meghan’s words: presumably, what it would mean if her son’s skin was darker than his father’s.
The world erupted in cries of, “Racism!” Personally, I would not be shocked at all to discover racism in the British establishment or among the Royals themselves, not because I believe them to be uniquely evil, but because racism is prevalent in so many portions of society. However, I believe there are more subtle points worth noting here.
What do we actually know? We know that an unnamed individual or individuals somehow associated with the Royal Family had conversations with Prince Harry in which the pigment of his son’s skin was discussed, including what the ramifications might be. I say we know this, but of course we only have Meghan and Harry’s side of the story, so we are taking their word for it that these conversations did occur. Personally, I do not doubt that the conversations occurred or the comments were made, but the conclusion being reached by so many—that the questions were asked with racist intent—is less clear. It would fit a certain narrative very well. It would match so much of what we have seen in human history. However, it would also ignore a pair of facts.
The Nature of the British Monarchy
First, the Royal Family has its basis in history and tradition. More than that, it is based on genetic descent. As anachronistic as it may seem in our increasingly meritocratic society, the right to rule the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is not granted based on personal performance or popular approval, but rather on direct descent from the former sovereign heads of state, as outlined in laws approved by Parliament.
The British monarchy is inherently anti-democratic and anti-meritocratic. It relies on descendants of former kings and queens to give birth to future kings and queens. That is why it was historically significant when Prince William talked about the possibility of one of his children being homosexual: not only because it reflects changing societal attitudes toward the LGBTQ+ community, but because whatever you may believe about human sexuality, you cannot deny that a human being is naturally conceived with a combination of male and female DNA.[2] If Prince George marries another male, they will not have genetic offspring capable of inheriting his crown. Homosexuality, regardless of its moral status, is therefore antithetical to the principles by which British monarchy operates.
Therefore, the birth of Archie Mountbatten-Windsor was not just another happy celebrity birth designed to sell more copies of Hello! and People. Archie is a potential heir to the throne of an ancient kingdom. Yes, it is unlikely that he will inherit, as there are plenty of others ahead of him in the line of succession, but his genetics mean he could be the king of the British, and one of the things we learn from British history is that the Britons have generally wanted their rulers to be British.
At times, that has meant they must have the proper ethnic makeup, and at times the proper religious beliefs. There have always been outsiders—rulers who didn’t quite fit the mold—but they have been subjects of criticism and suspicion. There was concern when the king of Scotland, James VI, became King James I of England. There was concern when the Hanoverian dynasty gained the throne chiefly on account of its Protestant beliefs, despite being ethnically more German than British. Henry Tudor, Henry Bolingbroke, even William of Normandy: all conquered England in their own ways, but all were at pains to declare that they were rightful genetic descendants of English kings.
You may call it racist if you wish, but it has always been an assumed fact that the British royalty would be British, or at least Northwest European. Therefore, the birth of a royal prince with genetic heritage from Africa, a part of the world that for much of British history had little or no contact with that island, is momentous in many ways. With an American mother and his partial African heritage, this boy is Exhibit A for the question of what it means to be British: a question that has been powerfully behind the Brexit debate and pops up often in Commonwealth relations.
Whether or not members of the Royal Family care about the shade of Archie’s skin on a personal level, it does have significance in terms of history, and it is something people will ask about as they consider the right of the House of Windsor to rule. What gives them the right anyway? In a world that, in large part, no longer believes in genetic aristocracy, these questions will be raised whether Archie’s parents like it or not. Therefore, it could be that the person(s) who made these remarks to Harry were indeed racist, ignorant, and hurtful. But it may also be that they were considering the realities of the world in which we live: not only the fact that racism is still prevalent, but also that the nature and function of the British monarchy is up for debate in ways it never would have been historically.
The Questions We Receive
The second thing that came to my mind upon hearing about this royal kerfuffle was how these comments about Archie are asked of parents around the world: specifically, parents of biracial children. How many interracial couples have heard people wonder aloud what shade their child’s skin will be? When the baby is born, people are anxious to see, “How dark?” As the child gets slightly older, people question whether their skin may grow darker or lighter still. Queries such as, “Will he/she look more like mom or dad?” have to do primarily with how dark he or she will be in these situations. If people are too afraid to ask their questions aloud, they surely think them.
I know because my husband is half Indian and my son a quarter Indian by ethnicity. Over the years, people have made comments to me about the color of my husband’s skin, typically expressing surprise that it is not darker. Since my son’s birth, people have sometimes looked at his skin and wondered if it is darker than mine.
Interestingly, I am not offended by most of these comments and questions, because I have generally felt that the people asking them did not think it would be a negative thing if my son’s skin was this color or that. They just viewed it as something to note, much like the color of his hair and eyes. Of course, due to the history of racism, the tone of my son’s skin is a sensitive topic in the way the color of his eyes is not, but even so, I am inclined to give grace in most situations. I know there are people in this world who would look on my son’s Indian heritage with genuine disdain. There are people whose hearts are so vile that they would call me a traitor to my race. Some of these persons stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6 of this year. But most of those who ask questions about skin color are not hardened white supremacists. They are just trying to create conversation.
Were the people who made these comments to Harry asking for racist reasons or simply to fill the silence? Did they think it would be a problem if Archie’s skin was dark, or were their words prompted by simple curiosity? We will probably never know for sure, but it is clear how Harry and Meghan interpreted them.
I feel very protective of my son and am prepared to stand up to anyone who belittles him, but I also want to avoid being too easily offended. Yes, many of these comments come from ignorance, but that does not necessarily mean willful, malicious ignorance. In a way, I feel sympathy for Harry and Meghan because I know how those comments can wound. However, I also believe I must not use my son’s ethnicity as an excuse to find offense in anything people ever say about him. Sometimes people make stupid comments because they have hate in their hearts, and sometimes people make stupid comments because they are just not perfect.
I leave you with these two
observations. The ongoing saga of the Sussexes will hopefully not consume any
more of the time I ought to be spending on my novel.
[1] Lewis, Sophie. “Harry: Archie’s skin color not discussed by queen or Prince Philip.” CBS News. Harry: Archie’s skin color not discussed by queen or Prince Philip (msn.com). Accessed 9 March 2021.
[2] Donnelly, Erin. “Prince William says he’d be ‘absolutely fine’ if his child came out as gay — but would worry about ‘backlash’.” Yahoo! Prince William: ‘Absolutely fine’ with having an LGBTQ kid (yahoo.com). Accessed 9 March 2021.