The Markle Debacle and Why Harry Is Right to Escape the Toils of the Royals

There is nothing in Britain's unwritten constitution to suggest the need for a royal family. All that is required in the way of royalty is a Monarch. On the death of the Monarch, the crown passes to another person in accordance with law as laid down, and from time to time changed, by the British Parliament. Under current law, the monarchy will pass on the death of Queen Elizabeth II, to her eldest son, Charles, and on the death of Charles, to his oldest son William.

There is no Constitutionally or legally determined rule according to which the successors to the British crown must undertake a public role. Except by virtue of other titles or appointments, neither Prince Charles nor his son William have any constitutionally mandated function unless and until they succeed to the throne. Yet today, not only Charles and William but a large number of other relatives of the British monarch, now widely referred to by the ludicrous term "Royals," engage in public activities, publicly funded, as if this were an essential requirement of the British system of government.

In fact, the "Royals" are for the most part an unnecessary burden on the taxpayer and a frequent embarrassment, the Queen's son, Prince Andrew, being a prime example. Prince Harry's marriage to a  bitchy minor TV actress with vaulting ambition is a further example, except that Harry and his wife have opted to quite their public role as British "Royals." To that we say Bravo, and good luck. Now let us hear no more about them.