The fate of ‘spares’ compared with heirs seldom ends well, historian and royal expert Robert Lacey says.
His new book about the rift between Prince William and Prince Harry, Battle of Brothers, examines the recent royal schism and explains why the relationship between the brothers may never recover.
“This is the third spare in the reign of Elizabeth II who has come to grief; Princess Margaret, Prince Andrew and now Prince Harry,” Lacey told Jim Mora.
The pattern is always similar, Lacey says, with the siblings starting off as co-stars.
“Your older listeners will remember the little Princesses and how charmingly one saw Elizabeth and Margaret playing together certainly in pictures in the Second World War and so on, co-stars, and from then on, it’s downhill.
“In the case of Andrew, he was perhaps not ever so close to Charles, but as he tried in his own way to strike out on his own, and create an identity of his own, he failed in a quite spectacular fashion.”
William and Harry, forged and brought together by the tragedy of their mother’s death, seemed destined to buck that trend; Harry happy to play a supporting role as they got older, Lacey says.
“One of the big themes of my book is to start with Harry was acceptable to the idea of being his brother’s back up, even his court jester, he came over the years to resent it.”
Lacey says even in their teenage years; these roles were being established.
“He and William would organise a party and everyone would get blind drunk, but it was actually his brother, two and half years older who organised the party, it was his brother who constructed the discotheque in the cellars of Highgrove - but it was Harry who came out the offender and William came out smelling of roses.”
It’s the way the system works, he says.
“We look to the heir to be a hero and they sort of expect the spare to be an also ran. And once Harry had met Megan he came to look at this role in a less accepting way.
“What the Royal Family and indeed the British system, expects of someone like Harry is he’ll marry a nice girl called Annabelle or Henrietta, and go and live in the country and be a loyal back up when it comes to public duties for his brother. Something Prince Edward does to great effect in Britain.”
For a while Harry fitted in to that role well and then Meghan came along, Lacey says.
“When he got engaged and married Meghan they became the royal superstars when they got hitched back in May 2018 they overshadowed William and Kate and I’m afraid that is part of the problem.”
The schism came when Harry’s plans to live overseas, possibly in Canada, were leaked and enraged, he announced it officially himself giving the Royal Family only ten minutes notice of his intention.
The Royal Family, and William in particular, reacted with fury to being put in a corner in this way, Lacey says.
The Queen proposed a summit at Sandringham palace to smooth out the situation.
“There was one prince who said no I am not going to sit down with the family and talk about this and that prince was William not Harry.
“He felt that Harry had sorely betrayed the monarchy and the family, Harry of course felt equally strongly the other way.”
Ironically the whole idea of living abroad came from the Queen herself.
“When about a year earlier the Queen saw that Meghan wasn’t fitting in, for all sorts of reasons, she came up with this idea that they might be shifted abroad a bit.”
The Queen is at the heart of this confrontation, Lacey says.
“Elizabeth II at various points in her reign has proved absolutely rigid and uncompromising about what the House of Windsor and the constitutional monarchy should stand for.
“And with the best will in the world, although she loves Harry dearly, and respects Meghan and she has said this for the record, she couldn’t accept that their brand of social activism in the field of women’s rights, social change could be embraced so energetically.”
There are echoes here of the abdication Edward VIII, Lacey says.
“Here we have another divorced American woman at the heart of the issue and again the battle is between love and duty; except that it’s William who stands for duty in this case and Harry who stands for love.”
According to reports. Harry is happy in his new life, Lacey says.
“All the evidence is for the moment he’s much happier than people expect and that he’s totally absorbed in his parenting, he’s found a personal fulfilment in his life that he never quite derived from the Royal Family.”
The palace bungled the whole situation and should have known better, Lacey says.
Markle is a self-made woman, a millionaire and has a long history of social activism.
“She is the only self-made millionaire all the rest have inherited their money.”
Palace negotiators could have found a way for Harry and Meghan to stay within the Royal umbrella and still pursue their interests, he says.
“I would go so far to say that if there hadn’t been so much anger when the split was started to be first revealed and if cleverer negotiators had been able to sit down and calm the passions and say it’s actually not impossible for you to live in Canada if you want to for a bit.
“Something could have been worked out, but there was so much anger at the time, and I fear the anger has developed since.”
We will have a better idea of the situation between the two brothers next year, Lacey says.
On July 1 it is the 60th anniversary of Diana’s birth and the two brothers are committed to unveiling a statue together in Kensington Gardens in her memory.
“It may embarrass them slightly, but they are both committed to doing it, presumably their wives will be there with them, presumably Prince Charles will be in attendance, presumably Camilla will not.”
The whole world will be watching that event, he says.
“Whether they are just looking at an act of two people coming together for the sake of public appearances, well that is fatal for the Royal Family.
“The moment people feel that royal people are putting on an act that is the beginning of the end for the credibility of that system.”