Harry, Meghan and the Queen: the questions a family feud poses about the monarchy’s future

From allegations about bullying and accusations of racism to revelations about family breakdown, the Sussexes’ interview with Oprah Winfrey has triggered a crisis for the monarchy. It is a family crisis, clearly. It is a crisis in public relations, for the monarchy and for the UK. And it is an institutional one.

The role of the monarch as the UK’s head of state will continue for now – in the UK, at least. But the turmoil created by the interview shines a harsh new light on questions the monarchy already faced: whether its role in the Commonwealth continues, how to maintain public support, and how to preserve the legitimacy of a hereditary head of state.

The monarchy must confront these questions as it faces its greatest test for more than half a century: the succession. For most people, the Queen is the only British monarch they remember. When Prince Charles succeeds her he will have to show that the monarchy still deserves its role at the heart of the UK’s constitution.

Prince Charles will not inherit the Queen’s public approval ratings

After nearly three-quarters of a century on the throne, Elizabeth II’s popularity ratings are consistently high, at home and around the world. She gets praise from press, politicians and the public for her apolitical attitude and judgement; she has chosen, throughout her reign, to make little public comment. But these approval ratings will not automatically transfer to her heir, who has never enjoyed the level of public support that his mother does. While public acceptance of his marriage to Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, is much higher than at the start, he now must handle the allegations from the Duchess of Sussex that the Palace establishment failed to respond to her fears for her mental health and that she and her son Archie were victims of racism.

The monarchy emerged from the Oprah interview as an institution still struggling to modernise itself. Prince Charles’s efforts to slim down the monarchy, anticipating taxpayer resistance to paying for the extended family, may have provoked some of the arguments about titles and security that Meghan related. Harry’s complaints about the monarchy’s ‘invisible contract’ with the press point to the old relationship with the media that has always been hard for the Palace to manage – easier, though, for the Queen than for Charles, who has had less flattering coverage by the tabloids.

The Oprah interview could have consequences for the monarchy across the globe

The Oprah interview follows Prince Andrew’s infamous interview with Newsnight, and the ongoing questions about his relationship with the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein that has seen the Duke of York largely retire from public life. Both cases could well damage the way that the House of Windsor is seen across the world.

Those who find the pomp and ceremony of the monarchy appealing – from the tourists drawn to Changing of the Guard, to the diplomatic value of the pageantry of State visits – will no doubt still enjoy the show. But there is no question that the Sussexes' allegations have damaged that picture. Three years ago there was much talk about how they were modernising the monarchy and reaching new audiences: like the Cambridges before them, but with even greater attraction to the young, to the US and, particularly, an appeal to multi-culturalism. That potential advantage has been lost, at least for now, and instead been replaced by claims of racism that it will be hard to counter.

This could have consequences for the monarchy beyond the UK. Former Australian prime minister Malcolm Turnbull has called for another referendum on the Queen’s position as head of state; Barbados has said it will become a republic this year. After this latest scandal other Caribbean islands may consider whether they want to follow suit. The end of Elizabeth’s reign could be an even greater turning point for the Commonwealth than it was already likely to be.

The future of the monarchy is also the future of the UK constitution

For the UK, however, the key question may prove to be the role that the monarch plays at the heart of the constitution.

While the Queen continues to be kept well informed, and supposedly offers counsel to her prime ministers, she has strengthened the sense that the monarch has a rigidly apolitical, even largely ceremonial, role in using the powers the constitution affords her. Hence royal prerogative powers are exercised on the advice of ministers, and there is an ongoing debate about whether and when she could even intervene using her ‘reserve powers’ – for example to dismiss a prime minister, to choose between competing candidates after a messy general election, or to refuse a prorogation or general election if circumstances were controversial.

But maintaining this balance relies in part on what one could call the ‘good queen’ theory. Just like Peter Hennessy’s ‘good chap’ definition – that historic aspects of our constitution and its reliance on convention depend on continued compliance and ultimately good behaviour – so too does the Sovereign’s role in the constitution frequently depend on trust in her personal approach. She may not use the powers, but the opportunity for the monarch to intervene in our political system still exists.

Whether this balancing act can be maintained after the succession is a problem that both Charles and the government will need to consider. Would King Charles be able to repeat the Queen’s skill of maintaining both legitimacy and trust while exercising his constitutional duties? In the midst of a parliamentary crisis – such as when a prime minister is in intensive care or might face a vote of confidence in the House of Commons, to mention two recent examples – trust in the impartiality of monarch – however apolitically she or he actually behaves – is crucial. If Charles cannot maintain that perception, it will bring into question the role of the Sovereign in the constitution. Charles, and his team, must now focus on more than just repairing the immediate damage of the interview.

The Oprah interview will, like previous Windsor family dramas, fade away. Perhaps family reconciliation may follow. However, this latest episode of the non-fiction Crown is about more than a feuding family. It is about the fundamental durability of the role which that family plays in the UK and beyond.