It is here that we see how the typical American viewpoint of everyone being equal converges with the viewpoint of the anti-monarchists in the United Kingdom. They too regard everyone as equal, and cannot understand why the position of head of state should be hereditary. They want it open to all, and republicans have even suggested that David Beckham would make a better head of state than Queen Elizabeth II. What they fail to understand is that even when the hereditary element has been removed, equality is only a notional concept, for the head of state in a republican or even a Marxist society, occupies a unique position within that state and is generally acknowledged to be a thing apart from all other citizens. The fact that Meghan had no respect for her own president will have enhanced her belief that the position of head of state is therefore just another position, and that she, being an avowed activist, has a perfect right to challenge it as and when it is in her interest to do so. To people who admire empowerment, there can be no doubt that Meghan has grown into a fully empowered woman who respects no one person or position as much as she respects her right to forge her own path. The fact that she now took on Queen Elizabeth II was awe-inspiring, to say the least. She deserved acknowledgement for having decided to treat the monarch as just another individual with whom she deals, but this attitude caused astonishment in many British circles, not the least of which was the press, who soon saw just how potent and resourceful Meghan could be when she puts on her thinking cap. Hard on the heels of ‘stepping back’, she and Harry issued a statement declaring that they would be suspending the Rota system. This was like lobbing a live grenade into the media arena.
Alluded to earlier in this work, the Rota system which had been in place for decades was viewed by both the press and the palace as the fairest and most practical way in which these two organs of British national life could co-exist to each other’s mutual benefit. By appointing one journalist and/or photographer out of a pool of other journalists representing the seven leading newspaper companies in the country, both the Royal Family and the press were assured of mutually beneficial coverage with the maximum guaranteed for minimal output of manpower, by the sole representative(s) passing on content to all their other colleagues.
The Rota has always worked well because only accredited journalists have access. This assured the royals of having reputable representation and a measure of control that was acceptable to both sides. Journalists who indulged in dubious or unethical conduct would lose their accreditation, while the royals accepted it is the right of the press to criticise fairly, so the system has always had a degree of impartiality which works well for both the Royal Family and the press.
It should be remembered at this juncture that the British royals, like all other public figures in Britain, accept that our media are more robust and critical in their scrutiny than any other national press. Everyone understands it, most public figures accept it and come to terms with it, even though we all struggle through the negatives at one time or another. Public figures who bemoan their lot too loudly lose respect from both their peers and the press, because most public figures in this country appreciate the importance of a free press.
Although Harry and Meghan maintained that they too respected the media’s right to call them to account, their every action contradicted these assertions which were viewed by those they were trying to muzzle as both hypocritical and meretricious. Indeed, the couple’s own assertions suggested that their interpretation of objective press coverage was a faithful repetition of any instruction they provided, with the journalist plumping out his piece with purely positive or adulatory comments. In essence, they wanted the British press to perform the way the American does when covering celebrities. With the exception of hard news interviews, which are conducted by journalists who are encouraged to write as they see fit, PRs write the script for celebrity coverage and newspapers and magazines in the US either follow it or alter it with the consent of the subject and/or his/her press representatives. This is the system Meghan Markle got used to as a minor celebrity who was insufficiently newsworthy for journalists to take an independent line with. It had been something of a shock for her, when she was confronted by the way the British press functioned, to realise that her views could be challenged, her behaviour scrutinised. It was obvious that the Sussexes’ refusal to continue with the Rota system was their determined attempt to impose American style journalism upon the more robust British press. Since they couldn’t exclude representatives of the companies they were litigating against, and since Meghan and Harry’s policy was to eliminate anyone who displeased them, their alternative was to replace the Rota system with one of their own invention. ‘Meghan takes her role of being a force for change seriously,’ the journalist Alexis Parr said. ‘But the change is always in her favour and, where the press is concerned, to the detriment of its freedom of expression.’
This certainly seemed to be the case. But Meghan and Harry were not prepared to merely replace an impartial system with one partial to them that they could control more easily. They were building towards an even more draconian remedy, for Harry has a rabid and irrational hatred of the press, blaming it as he does
