Â鶹ÊÓƵAV

A family rift is bad enough without the added complication of intense media scrutiny. The public eruption of grievances between the Sussexes and ‘The Firm’ had been simmering in the private corridors of royal residences for a long time. How much is the media to blame for a saga which has come at a huge personal cost to those on both sides of the dispute? Many suspect the pile of negative stories and comments written about Meghan point to an undercurrent of racism in Britain and an unspoken unease among die-hard royalists about an ‘outsider’ infiltrating their ‘beloved institution’. Others deny press bullying or racism, believing that Harry and Meghan courted the media to advance their causes, and if they have aspirations to be A-listers with a Netflix deal, they should expect the scrutiny that comes with the status. Harry and Meghan’s departure from royal duties also highlights two contrasting notions of public service. Their supporters argue that public service does not have to be bound by the stuffy traditions of the past, and their public activism in the causes of racial, gender and climate justice reflects an important evolution of society and culture. This cultural shift, they believe, also sits uncomfortably alongside an institution that, to many, represents patriarchy, imperialism and privilege. Sceptics would say that Harry and Meghan’s activism is based on a tailor-made morality, which, for example, sees them denounce plastic packaging while continuing long-haul air travel. Those sympathetic to long-standing royal protocols believe that the quiet dignity of service – governed by duty, self-sacrifice and neutrality – still matters, and the Sussexes’ actions are as much about self-promotion as public service. With Kehinde Andrews, Dr Shola Mos-Shogbamimu, Camilla Tominey and Hugo Vickers.

Producer: Dan Tierney.