Who would have thought that as we enter the third decade of the 21st century a young father would be mocked and abused for putting his wife and child ahead of his job?
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Isn't this the type of cultural change people have been advocating for decades?
Prince Harry is to be commended for the love and loyalty that he has demonstrated to his own family by placing its happiness and security ahead of being a member of the royal family. Many of those now questioning his decision would have probably been among the first to complain if he had jumped the other way.
The rest would quickly change their minds if they were required to endure the litany of racist trolling and abuse that has been Meghan's lot since her engagement was announced.
Prince Harry is to be commended for the love and loyalty that he has demonstrated.
It's only to be expected Prince Harry would be sensitive to the media mauling and online trolling sent his wife's way. He and his brother are well aware of the effect of such behaviour on their mother and both hold the gutter press largely responsible for her death.
Prince Harry, like his brother, father and grandmother, was conscripted into the monarchy by an accident of birth and, like the Queen, was not high in the order of succession at birth. Once Prince William married and started to have children he was effectively off the hook and is now reportedly only sixth in line for the throne.
Some of the more absurd claims have included that Meghan had a "three year plan" to destroy the royal family and that the decision by the Sussexes to step back from traditional royal duties to spend time in both Canada and Britain while they are raising their family can be compared to the abdication crisis.
Both are patently absurd.
Prince Harry and Meghan are a young couple, apparently very much in love, trapped in a situation over which they have little or no control.
When Meghan took action over a newspaper's publication of a private letter she had written to her estranged father, the defence was that as she was supported, at least in part, by funds from the civil list anything she said or did that may reflect on her "suitability" to be a member of the royal family was of public interest.
That has to be the Catch-22 of all Catch-22s. If upheld it would condemn her to a lifetime of legalised scrutiny, vilification and abuse.
Meghan's response has apparently been to say she will no longer put herself in a position where she is reliant on taxpayer funds; a fair call and possibly her last line of defence.
As for the abdication analogy, Harry is not, and - unless there is some remarkable tragedy at Buckingham Palace one Christmas, will never be the reigning monarch. He is a relatively junior royal, albeit a high-profile one, and there can be no suggestion he is leaving his country in the lurch.
It has become increasingly evident in recent days that many of the attacks that have been launched on the Sussexes have emanated from powers behind the throne and do not necessarily reflect the views of other royals, especially Harry's grandmother.
That point was made loud and clear in a statement issued by the Queen on Tuesday which said, in part: "My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan's desire to create a new life as a young family... they have made clear that they do not want to be reliant on public funds in their new lives... these are complex matters for my family to resolve... I have asked for final decisions to be reached in the coming days".
Prince Harry deserves respect for putting those he loves and cares most about front and centre. His conduct is actually a good model for others to follow.
