Take a feudal relic. Add a splash of glamour. A pinch of wokeness. And a dash of hypocrisy.

Stir in
a lashing of racism. Squeeze out the last dregs of nuance. And dump it all into the ferment of
social media and tabloid gossip. What do you get? A surreal debate about Meghan, Duchess of
Sussex, the royal family, racism and wokeness that seems to have turned more heads than one
of the duchess’s £60,000 outfits.

The latest episode in the soap opera began when the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and their
three-month-old son, Archie, took a private jet to fly to the south of France to holiday in Elton
John’s villa. Cue outrage about the hypocrisy of a couple who make much of their environmental
credentials. And counter-outrage from those who insist that the criticism is unwarranted and
cover for bigotry.

Advertisement

John himself sprang to the couple’s defence, as did a host of celebrity friends. “Dear England and
English press,” tweeted actress Jameela Jamil, “just say you hate her because she’s black, and
him for marrying a black woman and be done with it God dammit.” Jamil is featured in the latest
edition of British Vogue – guest-edited by the duchess.

It’s not the first time that a royal has been turned into a soap opera. What makes the duchess
different, though, is that she’s black. Much of the discussion of her blackness has been of the
“nudge nudge, wink wink” type, from the Daily Mail’s “Harry’s girl is (almost) straight outta
Compton” story to Rachel Johnson’s description of the duchess’s “exotic DNA”. And then there
have been the straightforward racist trolls on Facebook and Twitter, 4chan and Gab. But while
some of the criticism has been racist, we should not exaggerate the extent of it. According to
one study, for instance, most of the abuse on Twitter has been driven by just 20 accounts.

Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you

Read more

Nor is there any truth to the claim that “England hates Prince Harry for marrying a black
woman”. According to the 2011 census, 2.3 million Britons, including a million white people, are
either married to, or living with, someone of a different ethnicity. On this, as on many other
social issues, the Sussexes are following, not leading, public attitudes.
The real impact of Meghan Markle has been less on reactionaries and racists than on liberals and
progressives, many of whom have seemingly forgotten (or, at least, conveniently set aside their
understanding) that there is nothing progressive about a monarchical system, whoever may be
part of it. From the moment it was announced that Harry and Meghan were to wed, there has
been a stream of claims that a black royal will transform race relations in Britain and that the
couple’s social liberalism will turn the royals into “potential allies” in progressive struggles.

There is a certain irony in so many being so alive to every nuance of white privilege but
seemingly so blind to the privilege that flaunts itself through the hereditary monarchy. Making
inherited privilege more “diverse” is hardly a step forward in the battle against racial inequality
(or, indeed, against climate crisis). Perhaps nothing divides opinion more than the royal couple’s
supposed “wokeness” – their support for causes from environmentalism to disability rights. For
many liberals, it’s a “beacon of hope”. For reactionaries from Nigel Farage to Piers Morgan, it’s
the corruption of a noble institution.

Historically, to be “woke” meant to be alive to injustices and has its roots in both black and
working-class struggles. In recent years, the phrase has come to the fore in black struggles
against police brutality in the US.

Today, though, to be woke is not simply to be aware of injustices, but to make a show of being
aware. It’s become one of those terms, like “political correctness”, that has been squeezed dry of
meaning but possesses, for proponents and critics alike, great posturing value, allowing people
to signal their place on the cultural map. In this, it’s the perfect tool for today’s monarchy. After
all, no one needs to posture more than those who seek to “modernise” an inherently obsolete
system.

Every day we are reminded that we live in an age in which many take pride in not being able to
walk and chew gum at the same time. Surely, though, it’s not too much to ask that we be hostile
to racism without bending our knee to inherited privilege?

• Kenan Malik is an Observer columnist

Since you’re here…

… we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading and supporting The Guardian’s
independent, investigative journalism than ever before. And unlike many news organisations, we
have chosen an approach that allows us to keep our journalism accessible to all, regardless of
where they live or what they can afford. But we need your ongoing support to keep working as
we do.

The Guardian will engage with the most critical issues of our time – from the escalating climate
catastrophe to widespread inequality to the influence of big tech on our lives. At a time when
factual information is a necessity, we believe that each of us, around the world, deserves access
to accurate reporting with integrity at its heart.

Our editorial independence means we set our own agenda and voice our own opinions.
Guardian journalism is free from commercial and political bias and not influenced by billionaire
owners or shareholders. This means we can give a voice to those less heard, explore where
others turn away, and rigorously challenge those in power.

We need your support to keep delivering quality journalism, to maintain our openness and to
protect our precious independence. Every reader contribution, big or small, is so valuable.
Support The Guardian from as little as $1 – and it only takes a minute. Thank y