Under the ancient crown of Britain, two names have set off a craze: Harry and Meghan. Will they become the great waves that shake the scepter of the monarchy?
Walter Bagehot (1826-1877) was a British constitutional historian and economist who served as editor-in-chief of The Economist and the author of The Constitution of England. In this book, he emphasizes the mystery and charm of the royal family, arguing that the day-to-day functioning of the royal family needs to be shielded from the public in order to maintain the charm and mystery of the monarchy. Members of the royal family have been asked to distance themselves from the public and maintain strict secrecy about family matters. However, with the rise of tabloid culture and personal social**, young royals have become the focus of public attention, but the public still knows little about the private lives of royals outside of formal settings.
As part of the privileged class, members of the royal family owned large tracts of land in the public eye and retained the extravagant hobbies of the medieval aristocracy, such as fox hunting and grouse hunting. Their very existence represents a political position. To ensure that a constitutional monarchy remains popular in democratic times, the royal family must keep a low profile and remain silent.
However, some time ago Prince Harry and Duchess Meghan were interviewed by Oprah, and they described in detail various aspects of royal life, including security measures and details of private conversations, which are strictly forbidden. They seem to have violated the "occult laws" of the royal family and seem to be indifferent to their actions. This has led to a wide discussion among the ** and the public, with some arguing that they are too open and out of place when talking about it.
However, we should understand that the royal family enjoys more power at the same time as it is subject to more restrictions. They do not have the right to choose their jobs, they do not have freedom of speech, they cannot support any political party or have their opinions expressed on major issues, and they do not have the right to vote. They are restricted in what they can wear and eat, and they are not allowed to wear sneakers or eat foods such as shellfish, foie gras, and pasta. In the age of smartphones, they can't even ** and can't have private social accounts.
These restrictions are based on the Crown "Convention" and not on legal provisions. Harry and Meghan's actions and remarks may be contrary to the royal family's convention. However, we cannot rely on this to make unfair judgments and speculations about them.
The British people are accustomed to referring to the royal family as "the firm" (the firm), seeing it as the mascot of the British tourism industry and bringing business opportunities to the country. However, if the royal family is likened to a corporation, then the members of the royal family are part of this state-owned enterprise, and they must comply with various regulations of the law, society, and the royal corporate convention. If the will of the individual takes precedence over the interests of the business, they can only be excluded. It is unrealistic for the Harrys to try to be "privileged ordinary people" in the royal family, so the British ** commented that they are "selfish, willful, and immature".
After Princess Diana gave an interview to the BBC and revealed the secrets inside the royal family, the royal family suffered a huge **. Now, Harry and Meghan's actions have once again caused an uproar. However, the ultimate beneficiary of this debate is likely to be Oprah, her controlling Harp Entertainment Group, and CBS.
Let us clearly distinguish between right and wrong, treat members of the royal family with respect and understanding, and avoid unwarranted speculation and speculation. Only in this way can we better support and protect the rights and interests of members of the royal family.