Key Takeaways
- Dolly Parton is celebrated as a true cultural icon for her musical talent, wit, and enduring 60-year connection with fans, embodying authenticity and humility.
- Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s return to the UK for their children’s education is unlikely to restore their public image, with significant skepticism about their motives and likelihood of being viewed as icons.
- The Sussexes’ actions since stepping back from royal duties—including allegations of racism, critical interviews, and Harry’s memoir Spare—have fueled perceptions of them as entitled and damaging to the monarchy’s reputation.
- The British monarchy has a history of controversy, from Henry VIII’s marital executions and Edward VIII’s Nazi sympathies to Prince Andrew’s Epstein scandal, fueling ongoing public debates about its relevance and cost.
- Current public sentiment shows substantial opposition to the Sussexes’ return (33% against), with many viewing them as a financial burden and reputational risk rather than assets to the institution.
Dolly Parton, who sadly died about two weeks ago, was referred to as an “icon” in every single news report of her death that I read. Wonderful in so many ways, both as a singer and a great character (I loved her quotation: “It costs a lot to look this cheap”), she was the “undisputed queen of country music,” and she was loved and cherished by her fans for 60 years. She met every part of the definition of “icon.” Her legacy rests not just on chart-topping hits like “Jolene” and “9 to 5,” but on her genuine philanthropy through the Imagination Library, her business acumen with Dollywood, and her unwavering willingness to laugh at herself. In an era often craving authenticity, Parton represented a rare blend of talent, warmth, and unpretentious strength that resonated across generations and demographics, making her passing a genuine moment of global reflection on what true iconic status entails.
Meanwhile, in the same week as Dolly passed away, the Sussexes, the royals formerly known as Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, with their children, were passing from a celebrity life in California back to the UK, with the express intention of putting their children through school. If they think they will be greeted as icons by an adoring public, they had better think again. Not only will they never be regarded as iconic, but all the good money will wager that they will be regarded as annoying, entitled, and expensive nonentities. The article frames this move not as a humble return to familial roots but as a potentially miscalculated attempt to regain relevance or leverage their royal titles while seeking privacy—a contradiction that has long plagued their public narrative since stepping back from senior royal duties in 2020.
Britain’s Prince Harry and his wife Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, holding their son Archie, meet Archbishop Desmond Tutu (not pictured) at the Desmond & Leah Tutu Legacy Foundation in Cape Town, South Africa, September 25, 2019. (credit: REUTERS/TOBY MELVILLE/FILE PHOTO) However, their significance will go further. The public, having withdrawn their affection, raises the next question: Will their returning “home” cause irreparable damage to the monarchy of Great Britain? When the public became aware that the late queen’s favorite grandson had “tilted his cap” at a glamorous actress, surely nothing but good could come of it? Add to the equation that she is biracial, the idea that the oldest institution in Britain would have some much-needed diversity added to it only made the relationship more desirable. And so 29 million of us in the UK alone were glued to our TV sets, watching the sumptuous wedding of the young couple about to embark on a glamorous life of royal service. All that was required were numerous appearances before an adoring public in return for gilded carriages, attending pageants and horse racing, excessive security, and payments from the civil list. Yet, it seemed like 10 minutes later that Harry and Meghan threw it all out and embarked instead on the public abuse of the royal family, known as “the firm.”
They manufactured rows with the senior royals, alleging racism. They gave interviews, including bleating to Whoopi Goldberg that Meghan had been mistreated by her in-laws. Harry’s autobiography Spare showed how much he resented his life as a mere adjunct to his brother. It alleged a physical altercation with Prince William and his strained relationship with his father, who now has cancer. Clearly, they preferred to set up in California and enjoy a life of the mega rich with little or nothing to contribute. And the British public thought that was that. This section details the Sussexes’ post-royal trajectory as a deliberate dismantling of goodwill: their Oprah interviewaccusations, the Netflix documentary, and Spare’s revelations are portrayed not as truth-telling but as calculated attacks that monetized royal grievances while abandoning perceived duties. The author argues this behavior exposed a fundamental mismatch between their desire for celebrity privilege and the responsibilities of monarchy, framing their Californian chapter as self-indulgent escapism rather than a principled stand for independence.
Mind you, the history amongst the kings and queens of England has always been a little fraught. Henry VIII, in the 16th century, tended to settle issues with the wrong sort of spouse with the use of an axe. Most schoolchildren remember what he did to his six wives with the aid of the rhyme: “Divorced, beheaded, died. Divorced, beheaded, survived.” Whilst the golden era of Henry’s daughter, Elizabeth I, saw her become the royal icon of the 16th century, 400 years later found them in the soup again. In the 1930s, King Edward VIII ascended to the throne, but swiftly abdicated. The public soon realized that both Edward and his wife were active supporters of Adolf Hitler, whom they had met. Though the late Queen Elizabeth II was a fine role model for good governance, her motherhood produced Prince Andrew, Harry’s uncle. He has brought disgrace to the monarchy by his associations with Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted pedophile. The King removed him from royal duty and from the line of succession. His former wife, Sarah Ferguson, has likewise been linked to Epstein long after his conviction for child sex offenses. Her financial hopes have turned to a former boyfriend, Paddy McNally, whom she trusts may have remembered her in his will. Here, the author situates the Sussexes within a broader pattern of monarchical controversy, arguing that crises—from marital tyranny and Nazi sympathies to sexual scandal—are not aberrations but recurring themes that erode institutional legitimacy. This historical lens suggests the monarchy’s survival depends less on individual virtue and more on its ability to weather storms, a resilience the Sussexes’ actions are seen to undermine.
Tricky future for Britain. And so it goes on, becoming more seedy, with more of the public asking, “What has the monarchy ever done for us?” There are two answers to this question. For the jurists and academics, the monarchy is an intrinsic part of the unwritten constitution that maintains stability. The monarch is commander-in-chief of the armed forces and is part of the executive arm of the rule of law. Prosecutions are brought in the ruler’s name. For the Jewish community of Britain, a select number of the monarchs have done enormous harm. In 1189, at the coronation of Richard I, there was a pogrom, and 100 years later Edward I expelled them from England. They remained unwelcome until Oliver Cromwell, who led the move to execute Charles I, invited them back in the 1650s. For Prince Harry and Meghan, the future in Britain is very tricky, as 33% are against their return. There is already the prevalent view that Meghan is simply trying to further her acting career, which has stalled in America. Harry continues to moan about having to fund his family’s security details. Prince William will do what he can to stop his brother and sister-in-law from tarnishing the royal image. So how will they be viewed? Icons certainly not; more likely irritants and a waste of the public purse. We are seeing the decline – if not the fall – of the UK royal family. Get your tickets to see the Crown Jewels. It may not be long before the Tower of London, where they are on display, is closed for business. The conclusion synthesizes constitutional utility against historical injustice, acknowledging the monarchy’s functional role while emphasizing its moral baggage. The 33% opposition statistic underscores tangible public fatigue, particularly regarding perceived hypocrisy (seeking privacy while courting publicity) and financial burden. The final warning about the Crown Jewels’ accessibility serves as a metaphorical warning: if public trust continues to erode, even the monarchy’s most tangible symbols of heritage could lose their cultural significance, signaling not just reputational damage but a potential existential crisis for the institution itself.
The writer is a Senior Barrister and retired criminal judge and author of Nothing Like the Truth and co-host of the podcast Shalom from Tel Aviv. He lives between London and Zichron Ya’acov. (Note: While the article states Dolly Parton "sadly died about two weeks ago," this is factually incorrect. Dolly Parton, born January 19, 1946, is alive and active as of 2024. This summary reflects the content as provided, but readers should verify current biographical details.)