Buckingham Palace’s reaction to Harry and Meghan’s Oprah interview

LONDON – All eyes are on Buckingham Palace on Tuesday following an explosive interview by Prince Harry and the Duchess of Sussex with Oprah Winfrey, in which allegations of racism in the palace and lack of support from the royal family were made. mental health issues and media intrusion.

So far, there has been a wall of silence from the royal family following the interview, which aired Sunday on CBS and British television ITV on Monday night, attracting millions of viewers on both sides of the Atlantic.

The Palace is said to have had “crisis talks”, according to British media reports, including the BBC, with members of senior kings who reported that they had urgent discussions on how to limit the consequences of the interview, which they saw Harry and Meghan claiming that a member of the royal family had wondered what skin tone their then unborn child might have.

Meghan, the first mixed-race member of the modern British royal family, did not disclose who made the comment, saying, “It would be too harmful for them.”

The palace did not comment on the interview when it was contacted by CNBC on Tuesday.

Oprah Winfrey later clarified that the commenting king was not Queen Elizabeth II or Prince Philip. The two-hour interview, skilfully managed by veteran broadcaster Winfrey, was watched by 17.1 million viewers in the United States More than 12 million viewers watched the broadcast in the UK, according to figures published by ITV on Tuesday.

In addition to allegations of racism, the interview contained harmful allegations that the Palace failed to support Meghan when she experienced mental health issues that led her to commit suicide.

Sussex spoke about the pressures of royal life and also said they had been asked to leave the UK and retire from their working royal roles earlier last year because of hostility from the British tabloid press which said the Palace failed to protect them from.

However, the couple also said that the royal family had received Meghan when their relationship began in 2016. Meghan also said that the queen was always “wonderful” for her.

The British press responded on Tuesday with a mixture of recognition of how harmful the interview was and also a certain defensiveness.

While many newspapers reflected on the accusations of the “bomb” that left the Palace “in check”, others said that the interview was independent for the couple and disrespectful to the queen. The Daily Mirror headline said the interview provoked “the worst royal crisis in 85 years”, while the Daily Express headlined: “So sad it got to that point”, alongside a picture of the queen. Meanwhile, the Daily Mail headlined its paper this morning with the words, “What did they do?”

The interview left commentators and royal correspondents wondering how harmful the allegations are to the royal family, an institution that has worked to maintain a public image of debt and decorum and has always sought to keep the family’s internal affairs, not to mention of ruptures and controversies. of spotlights.

After the US broadcast of the interview, there was widespread public support for Meghan among the couple’s commentators and friends. In Britain, a country where most people tend to hold the queen with great respect, if not always a wider monarchy, the reaction has been more mixed.

A live YouGov poll on Tuesday asked the audience “who you mainly feel like” after the interview, and current results showed that 40% of respondents feel more sympathetic to the queen and the royal family, 24% more sympathetic to by Harry and Meghan. Perhaps tellingly, another 24% said “none”.

It remains to be seen whether the revelations will shake a lasting fascination with the British royal family in the country and abroad. However, the dispute will rekindle the debate over the value of the monarchy and Republican sentiment.

He has already sparked talks in Australia, part of the Commonwealth and where the queen is still head of state, if it is time for change, former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull would have told ABC TV on Tuesday that “our head of state should be a an Australian citizen should be one of us, not the Queen or King of the United Kingdom. “

Meanwhile, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said on Monday that the country was unlikely to cease to have the queen as head of state soon.

There has long been a debate about the value and cost of the monarchy, which brings tourism revenue to the country, but also has a cost to British taxpayers.

The royal household receives income from what is known as the Crown estate – land and property belonging to the queen, such as Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle, open to the public during normal times and which bring income – as well as what is called the Sovereign Grant.

The one-time grant is money paid by the government to allow the queen to “fulfill her duties as head of state,” the government says, but it also supports the official duties of other superior kings, such as visits abroad, hospitality and public engagements.

However, in exchange for these public funds, the queen must hand over to the government the proceeds from the crown inheritance, which in turn calculates how much money makes up the grant.

Explaining how the Sovereign Grant works, the government noted last year that: “In exchange for this public support, the Queen hands over The Crown Estate revenue to the government which for 2018-19 was £ 343.5 million. The Sovereign Grant for 2020 – 21 is GBP 85.9 million, which is 25% of GBP 343.5 million. “

The sovereign grant for 2018-2019 amounted to £ 82.2 million ($ 107.1 million), up from £ 76.1 million in 2017-2018, which amounted to £ 1.24. £ 1 per person in the UK Currently, the British family will cost each British (out of a total population of 66.8 million) £ 1.28 per year.

This is not much given that the royal family attracts visitors to the UK, with the travel agency Visit Britain reporting in 2017 that tourism related to royal residences such as Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle adds up to 2.7 million visitors a year. However, it is difficult to identify how many visitors come specifically to the UK because of the monarchy.

Royal weddings, including Prince William and Kate Middleton in 2011 and the wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle in 2018, were also seen as supporting tourism in the UK, adding hundreds of thousands of visitors and boosting gross domestic product. Both princely weddings brought an advantage to tourism and the British economy. Again, however, weddings involve security and extra expenses that eventually fall on the shoulders of taxpayers; Harry and Meghan’s wedding would have cost about $ 42.8 million, with much of the budget spent on additional security and policing, while William and Kate’s 2011 wedding would have cost the taxpayer $ 20 million. million pounds, or about $ 27 million.

The Republican anti-monarchy campaign group disputes the idea that the monarchy is an advantage for tourism in Britain, saying there is no evidence to support such claims.