The binary choice of Harry & Meghan and the coronation
It’s now 60 days until the coronation and seemingly the only question on social media and on newscasts is whether the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have been invited, and whether they will attend.
Sure, it’s the biggest single event of his father’s reign, but the past two years, especially the past three months, has seen the California-based couple unleash a deluge of criticism and controversy toward his family via multiple interviews, podcasts, a six-hour Netflix series, Prince Harry’s memoir, Spare, and all the interviews that accompanied that launch.
All indications point to King Charles III wanting them in Westminster Abbey on May 6. Yet, he’s also kicking them out of their UK home, Frogmore Cottage, though they have until the summer to pack the last of their belongings. Sure, they can stay in the cavernous Windsor Castle or Buckingham Palace, neither of which are lacking accomodation space, but that’s not the same as having one’s own home, albeit one only used a few days each year.
On March 5, Roya Nikkhah, the royal editor of the Sunday Times, published the scoop that everyone wanted:
Last night, a spokesperson for the Sussexes confirmed that Harry had “recently received email correspondence from His Majesty’s office regarding the coronation. An immediate decision on whether the Duke and Duchess will attend will not be disclosed by us at this time.” Coronation Day on May 6 is their son Archie’s 4th birthday.
Her tweet contained the first part of the official statement — “I can confirm that the Duke has …”
The 37 words of that two-sentence statement contain a lot of information and illustrated the current state of royal relations between Buckingham Palace and Montecito, California — which appears both formal and strained.
As every word of that statement seems to have been weighed and considered, I’m analyzing what was included as well as what isn’t there.
Am I overthinking this? Perhaps. But it’s still what everyone is talking about. So let’s dive in:
FIRST SENTENCE:
I can confirm The Duke has recently received email correspondence from His Majesty's office regarding the coronation.
The correspondence went to Prince Harry, not both the King’s younger son and his daughter-in-law, Meghan. The message seems to be that the palace is just talking to Harry and not his wife.
Also, it wasn’t a phone call but “email correspondence.” This implies that there is still no direct communication between father and son. In January, while promoting Spare, Harry said he had not spoken to his father “in quite some time.”
As well, it came not from the King himself, but from “His Majesty’s office,” indicating that the correspondence came from the King’s staff. In Spare, Harry was unstinting of his distain for the King’s private secretary, as well as those of the late Queen and Prince of Wales, writing, “Deep down, I feared that each man felt himself to be the One True Monarch, that each was taking advantage of a Queen in her nineties, enjoying his influential position while merely appearing to serve.”
It was “email correspondence … regarding the coronation”: nowhere does the 37-word statement actually say that Prince Harry received an invitation to the coronation. The fact-checker in me immediately wonders about that phraseology — it could be a list of all the coronation weekend events, or an invitation for both of them, or just for Harry, or perhaps saying that an invitation is possible if certain conditions are met, such as not repeating confidences, such Harry did in Spare when he recounted the deeply personal conversation between him, William and Charles after Prince Philip’s funeral. (I reached out to Archewell for clarification regarding whether the correspondence was an invitation but have not heard back.)
SECOND SENTENCE
An immediate decision on whether the Duke and Duchess will attend will not be disclosed by us at this time.
“An immediate decision” implies there will eventually be a decision, if only because May 6 is a firm deadline.
“Whether the Duke and Duchess will attend” suggests that it’s a package deal — they both go or they both don’t go. Then again that may be a misinterpretation.
And in a dig at palace communications, which they have blamed for leaking negative stories to the press, it says that the decision “will not be disclosed by us at this time.” So, they’ve confirmed email correspondence about the coronation but won’t say if they’re actually going to attend.
BOTTOM LINE:
Left unsaid in this two-sentence statement is that this is a binary choice for both the Duke and Duchess of Sussex:
Either Harry goes to the coronation, or he doesn’t.
Either Meghan goes to the coronation, or she doesn’t.
Eventually, someone somewhere will make that decision public so we can all move onto the next phase of the “Harry & Meghan and the coronation” saga, which feels very much like a continuation of “Harry & Meghan and the Platinum Jubilee” and “Harry & Meghan and the Queen’s Funeral.”
Coronation countdown
The coronation oil used to anoint the King and Queen was created from olives from groves on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem, at the Monastery of the Ascension and the Monastery of Mary Magdalene, where the King’s grandmother, Princess Alice of Greece, is buried.
“Since beginning the planning for the Coronation, my desire has been for a new Coronation Oil to be produced using olive oil from the Mount of Olives,” stated the Archbishop of Canterbury, who will conduct the ceremony. “This demonstrates the deep historic link between the Coronation, the Bible and the Holy Land. From ancient kings through to the present day, monarchs have been anointed with oil from this sacred place.”
By the Numbers
The royal year got off to a fast start.
According to the Court Circular, which tracks all official engagements, the 11 working royals did 338 engagements, ranging from King Charles III having tea with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to Princess Anne attending the annual Oxford Farming Conference. The count is up from the 261 that the eight did in 2022 and even surpasses the 324 engagements that those same royals did before the pandemic in 2019. (For true comparison, I’ve excluded royals who are not working today from the historical data. )
It’s still early in the work year — we’re in the 10th week of 2023, and though trends are beginning to form, the coronation will undoubtedly introduce anomolies into the data.
THE REST OF MY DATA ANALYSIS IS FOR PAID SUBSCRIBERS AND FOUNDING MEMBERS
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to WRITE ROYALTY by Patricia Treble to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.