The Feminist Case for a Republic: Why the British Monarchy and Gender Equality Cannot Co-Exist in the UK

 Written by Mary Anne Keegan, BA(Hons) in Social Policy and Politics and International Relations

 This is the fourth in our series of blog posts by students on the Feminism and Politics class, 2021. Click here for the previous post by Alison Paton on the infamous Handforth Parish Council meeting. Together, Alison and Mary Anne cast a critical eye on the capacity of British political institutions to progress in a more feminist direction.

Following the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s televised interview with Oprah Winfrey, which aired on ITV in April, the illusion of a respectable, centuries old British institution began to unravel. The question on many people’s minds was: ‘What does this mean for the British royal family?’

 Whilst we are far from becoming a republic any time soon, it is certain that a monarchy is unsustainable if we are ever to make progress towards achieving full gender equality in our country. As feminists, we often talk of female role models and representation, about how inspiring and refreshing it is to see a woman in what is - usually - a male-dominated space. We tend to look favourably upon these women, as they instil a sense of pride in us. Yet, we still do not have equality as women. It is about time we asked ourselves a different question: ‘what role does the British monarchy play in maintaining and perpetuating the patriarchy?’

In what follows, I will examine the numerous ways in which the monarchy, as an arm of the British state, fails to uphold crucial feminist values of our time and lends itself to inherent racism and misogyny. However, other actors such as the news media and individual members of the royal family also play a role in contributing to a deeply sexist culture entrenched at the heart of British society. 

 The Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s interview with Oprah Winfrey. Credit: Joe Pugliese/Harpo Productions, source: https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/oprah-winfrey-interviews-meghan-markle-prince-harry

When Meghan Markle became engaged to Prince Harry in 2017, the internet was inundated with articles and think pieces on how the new Princess, as a feminist woman of colour, would modernise the royal family. Many assumed this would be a turning point for the monarchy, particularly in terms of social justice. Soon after the engagement, The New Statesman hailed Meghan as ‘the princess to cheer up feminists’. A mixed race woman born in the USA to a black mother and a white father, albeit only distantly related to royalty. A Hollywood actress and outspoken feminist. She was set to bring her own values and life experience into the institution, and was evidently distinct in many ways, from the usual calibre of women who marry into the British royal family.

However, it was naïve to assume that Meghan’s entry into the monarchy would transform that institution, just as it was naïve to assume that it would advance women’s’ interests in any sort of way. Debates about political representation might be helpful here. Hanna Pitkin influentially defined four concepts of representation – authorised, descriptive, substantive and symbolic.[1]  The women of the British monarchy, such as the Queen, offer representation of women at a symbolic level. Symbolic representation by its nature, does not always serve as an accurate reflection of those who are to be represented.[2] Whilst female members of the royal family may have gender in common with those who they are supposed to represent, they do not typically share the reality of life for women in the UK and the rest of the world for that matter. Gender aside, they possess every other type of privilege that exists, namely whiteness and wealth.

Click to watch Meghan Markle speaking about Gender Equality at a UN Women Conference in 2015. 

Source: What We See, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zkb-zg4JCLk 

Whilst liberal feminists, such as those who wrote articles on how Meghan would transform the monarchy, tend to believe that gender equality can be achieved from within the pre-existing structures of the state, many other feminists believe quite the opposite. Raka Shome regards the royal family and the monarchy as ‘the ultimate establishment of British national patriarchy’ [3] and this is hard to disagree with – after all, the many scandals that have emerged from the institution are deep-rooted in misogyny. Laura Clancy and Hannah Yelin [4] explore the limitations of Meghan’s ability to make any real change within the establishment, noting that by her becoming a princess, the British monarchy are excused from the hard work needed to present themselves as more progressive, as her presence is the only evidence they need if they are challenged on the issue.  This way, the monarchy can remain an instrument of the ruling class, concealed behind their token feminist. What use is a feminist in this environment, when she does not have a voice?

Soon after the wedding, when Meghan became pregnant, things began to get pretty ugly. The news media embarked upon a crusade of hatred towards the new royal, when she no longer had the communicative means to defend herself. Not only was misogyny at play, but racism too. Stefanie Boulila asks how the royal family, ‘a symbol of white supremacy and heteropatriarchy’ can portray itself as post-racial and post-feminist.[5] The short answer is – they cannot. It wasn’t long before tensions were visible in the institution and in January 2020, the couple stepped down as senior royals. In the interview with Operah Winfrey, the Duchess revealed that there ‘were concerns regarding the skin tone’ of her unborn baby, and when he was born, he was not given a title and therefore was not entitled to a security detail. Now, what would possess an institution to behave in such a manner, if not misogyny and racism? This is where an intersectional feminist perspective is important. Not only does Meghan face disadvantages due to being a woman, but even more so as a woman of colour. Kehinde Andrews concludes that any conception of post-racialism within the royal family is delusional and serves only to further entrench inequality.[6]

On the topic of racism, there are suggestions that the crescendo of hate towards Markle in the media grew alongside Brexit tensions. Nathalie Weidhase argues that Meghan was perceived as a threat to national values, when national feelings of anxiety and nostalgia were triggered by the constitutional crisis caused by Brexit. However, she also doubled as a symbol of hope when she fulfilled her traditional role of reproductive labour – thus consolidating the complex relationship between feminism and nationalism, particularly the British ethnonationalism which has been at the forefront of the UK political landscape for the last five or six years.[7] Hee-Kang Kim identifies that a loss of nationhood can evoke a feeling of emasculation in men, therefore helping to explain the barrage of negative press which Meghan Markle received in a time of national uncertainty.[8] 

This, however, does not let the British monarchy off the hook. When the news media published vitriol about the princess, the institution of the royal family was complicit in allowing Meghan to be publicly abused, to the point where she felt, in her own words, ‘suicidal’. An establishment which parades women for public consumption, favourable opinion and money, then refuses to intervene when she is having abuse directed her, is the polar opposite of a feminist institution. When an instrument of the state uses and dehumanises women in this way, it is clear that gender equality and the monarchy in the UK cannot co-exist.

 Furthermore, in 2019, Prince Andrew, the Duke of York , found himself embroiled in allegations of sexually exploiting a child who was trafficked by the billionaire sex trafficker, Jeffrey Epstein. The British royal family’s ability to defend and protect Andrew, but not Meghan, is a display of tragic, ingrained racism and misogyny. Even more so, the choice to defend the Prince instils the fact that this particular establishment is not willing to listen to victims of trafficking, child exploitation and abuse, sexual assault and rape.

Prince Andrew is photographed taking a walk in Central Park, New York with known sex offender Jeffrey Epstein,  now deceased. Credit: news syndication, source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49411215

 The official departure of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex from the royal family has invited conversations of whether a monarchy is appropriate in modern times. Following the recent interview, polling also suggests that there are hugely contrasting views on the British monarchy, between the younger generation and the older generation. As we slowly make progress towards gender equality, and as the British monarchy becomes less favourable with each new generation, hopefully we can rid ourselves of the patriarchal burden attached to having a royal family in Britain. In the words of Clancy and Yelin, ‘The monarchy relies upon interwoven structures of colonialism, capitalism, patriarchy, and racism, and as such is incompatible with feminism’s work towards dismantling intersecting systems of oppression.’[9]

Click here for the next blog post in the series, Jude McCafferty on sexual assault in the US military.

References

[1] Pitkin, H. F. (1967) The Concept of Representation, Berkeley: University of California Press

[2] Childs, S. and Lovenduski, J. (2013) ‘Political Representation’, in Georgina Waylen et al (eds) The Oxford Handbook on Gender and Politics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[3] Shome, R. (2001) ‘White Femininity and the Discourse of the Nation: Re/membering Princess Diana’, Feminist Media Studies, 1(3), pp, 323-342.

[4] Clancy, L. and Yelin, H. (2018) ‘Meghan’s Manifesto’: Meghan Markle and the Co-option of Feminism’, Celebrity Studies, 11(3), pp. 372-377.

[5] Boulila, S. C. (2019) Race in Post-Racial Europe,London: Rowman & Littlefield.

[6] Andrews, K. (2021) ‘The post-racial princess: Delusions of racial progress and intersectional failures’, Women’s Studies International Forum, 84(1), pp. 1-6.

[7] Weidhase, N. (2021) ‘The feminist politics of Meghan Markle, British Femininity and the Nation in Crisis’ European Journal of Cultural Studies, 1(1), pp. 1-18.

[8] Kim, H. K. (2009) ‘Should feminism transcend nationalism? A defense of feminist nationalism in South Korea’, Women’s Studies International Forum, 32(2), pp.108-119.

[9] Clancy, L. and Yelin, H. (2021) ‘Monarchy is a feminist issue: Andrew, Meghan and the #MeToo era monarchy’ Women’s Studies International Forum, 84(1), pp 1-8.