Introspection Required: Harry Follows Edward’s Lead in Exposing Royal Redundancy

So, the Queen has momentarily quietened the latest scandal to afflict the British royal family by supporting Prince Harry and his wife Meghan’s desire to take a ‘step back’ by allowing a ‘period of transition’ as they split their time between the UK and Canada.

At 93, Elizabeth II must have thought that her days of fixing family issues were long gone, but such is not the case with an institution so archaic and inflexible as to feel redundant for most ordinary people. Or so it would seem.

The Queen is reputedly very unhappy with the Sussex’s

The public reaction to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s surprise announcement, and the media frenzy that followed, shows how deeply ingrained interest in the lives of the royal family remains in modern Britain. It seems a particularly quixotic sideshow for many people despite the inherent dullness of much of the Windsor clan.

A Mail Online poll suggests the public feel as betrayed as the Queen by the Sussex’s decision

Obvious comparisons can be drawn between Prince Harry’s wish to alleviate the royal burden from himself and the decision by Edward VIII to abdicate the throne in 1936. Whilst not as drastic a turn of events – Harry is, after all, only sixth in line to the throne – the circumstances of Edward’s abdication and the personalities involved show some parallels with the current ‘crisis’.

Having only ascended the throne in January 1936, Edward VIII’s reign never seem destined to be a long or happy one. A reputed playboy in his youth, he never wanted to be king and showed disdain towards royal tradition on his ascension, failing in the eyes of many to act in a manner befitting of a royal. Breaking point came with the entrance into his life of an American woman (cue comparisons with Ms Markle).

Wallis Simpson was a soon to be twice-divorced woman when her and Edward entered a relationship. Scandal abounded at the royal court and the public were just as horrified by the news that their monarch was dallying with a treacherous divorcee. This was particularly troublesome given that the King was the titular head of the Church of England, which thoroughly disapproved of re-marriage after divorce.

Edward was not to be deterred, however, and he renounced the throne to marry ‘the woman I love’.

A scandalous marriage: the former Edward VIII (then Duke of Windsor) ties the knot with Wallis Simpson in France, June 1937

It could be argued that the appearance of Wallis Simpson on the scene was the perfect excuse for Edward to justify turning his back on a duty he never wanted to fulfill. One may be equally cynical and suggest that Meghan Markle offered Harry a similar opportunity.

Never appearing comfortable within the royal fold – how could anyone born outside such bizarre tradition and conformity? – Meghan has rumoured to have been agitating for a break from the stifling role of monarchical ambassador. Harry, too, has frequently castigated the unfair attention directed at his family (especially from the press), seemingly pained by having to tow the royal line.

Whereas Edward retained royal titles and proceeded to live the life of riley after his abdication – cosying up to Hitler, socialising with the elite on both sides of the Atlantic, landing a cushy number as Governor of the Bahamas – Harry does not given the impression that he simply wants the easy life.

Edward was accused of being a Nazi sympathiser

Already deeply engaged in charitable work (as is Meghan), the Prince clearly just yearns for a break from the spotlight. Questions will necessarily still rumble regarding the Sussex’s income, for how can they continue to take taxpayer money without being paraded on show from time to time?

If ever there was an opportunity for some introspection from the royal family then it is now. This is not a modern institution in touch with reality, its global role and clout diminishing by the year as the heady days of Commonwealth unity disappear in the rearview mirror. Losing one of its most popular members – however conclusively – is a devastating blow and neither the Queen nor Prince Phillip will last much longer despite their remarkable longevity.

It remains to be seen whether Prince Charles, or his elder son William, have the energy and desire to re-invent the British monarchy for the 21st century.

The Great European Refugee Crisis: Turkish Actions Evoke Ottoman Nightmares

The great European refugee crisis of 2015 seems a distant memory to some, as for that matter does its primary cause, the Syrian Civil War. Yet the number of desperate migrants heading west into Europe is on the rise again, and once more it is due to actions in Syria, this time precipitated by the Turks.

Home for many Syrian refugees in Turkey: they fear a freezing winter

Having secured the nod of approval from President Donald Trump – who inexplicably promised to withdraw American troops without seemingly consulting  his military staff – Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erodgan ordered his army to invade northern Syria. The target? Kurdish fighters, those who had played such an important role in crushing the Islamic State (IS), American allies no less.

Part of Erdogan’s rationale for the invasion was to remove a well-trained Kurdish force from Turkey’s border, not trusting their separatist (or in the President’s eyes ‘terrorist’) intentions. Another reason was to attempt to solve Turkey’s own refugee crisis. Since President Bashar-al-Assad turned the sword on his own people some eight years ago, Turkey has hosted about 3.6 million Syrian refugees.

Turkish military convoy at the Syrian border

Such an influx has understandably put a massive strain on infrastructure and resource, with vast makeshift camps constructed in the hope of containing the refugees away from a wary native population. Invading northern Syria offers a potential solution for Erdogan; it opens up a new swath of territory into which the refugees can be banished, ‘sent home’.

Besides the undoubted moral implications of returning refugees into a war zone under the control of a brutal dictator happy to murder his own people, Erdogan’s plan had major flaws. Not only would trying to relocate millions of unwilling and exhausted civilians prove a logistical nightmare but the military campaign in northern Syria has simply led to more refugees (many of them Kurds) fleeing their homes. Where can they go? Well, Turkey of course.

That these developments have potentially massive implications for Europe were brought to light recently on the Greek island of Lesbos. There, a devastating fire broke out in a makeshift camp housing some 12,000 refugees that had fled war zones in the Middle East. One person died, sparking off large protests by the camp inhabitants who believed the local fire brigade was deliberately slow to react. The Greek police in turn cracked down on the protests with little mercy.

A fire engulfs a shipping container – a makeshift home for refugees on the island of Lesbos

Lesbos has been one of the first places in the European Union that refugees have been able to get to when escaping Turkey. Erdogan has threatened to further “open the gates” for refugees into Europe if he does not get support for his plans. 

Some of Erdogan’s actions smack of fear, knowing as he does that his rule is under domestic scrutiny in a manner previously inconceivable. He would do well, though, not to use millions of people as a political tool and remember the dying days of the Ottoman Empire, when a decaying and corrupt regime allowed similar events to spiral out of control, hastening imperial decline.

The Great Eastern Crisis (1875-1878) saw the political awakening of the Balkans and ignited a series of localised uprisings that eventually embroiled the major powers of Europe, led to de jure independence for many Balkan states and signalled the end of the Ottoman era.

Insurrections in Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria and Macedonia overwhelmed the creaking Ottoman administration and military, whose failure to modernise had undermined the foundations of the centuries-old caliphate. This was aided by international interference, whether it be the Russians supporting their Slavic neighbours in Bulgaria, or the British propping up Turkish rule in the hope of limiting Russian influence in the Near East, hungry states ready to prey on the carcass of the helpless Sultan.

A dying Montenegrin during their uprising against the Ottomans

The Congress of Berlin held in 1878 was an attempt by the European powers (Russia, Britain, France, Italy, Austria-Hungary and a newly-unified Germany) to solve the ‘Balkan problem’ so that it would not result in a wider European war. Long-winded negotiations eventually led to a treaty that decided the new territorial boundaries of the Balkan states. The upshot was that Ottoman lands and authority in Europe were almost eviscerated.

Whilst the treaty amounted to progress for some of the Balkan peoples, not all were satisfied and, though it led to a temporary moratorium in the bloodshed, regional grievances would prove a major catalyst for World War One. No congress could save Europe this time.

One of the major issues overlooked by the Congress of Berlin was the refugee crisis caused by the wars of the 1870s. Russo-Bulgarian attacks against Muslims had led to more than 150,000 refugees fleeing Bulgaria alone. They headed for Istanbul, seeking solace in the aloof Porte, putting the city’s infrastructure on the brink of collapse (Glenny, 2012, p. 140).

Turkish refugees flee Tarnovo in Bulgaria, 1877

Typhus and starvation soon ravaged the Ottoman capital as further refugees poured in from elsewhere. In a bid to save their city, the authorities sanctioned the ousting of many of these refugees to Adrianople, which at the time was under the occupation of a virulently anti-Muslim Russian commander. Horrific atrocities followed and one can’t help feel that a similar scenario may occur today in Syria.

Population displacement not only hurried the Ottoman death but it also strained the resources of other European states, whilst creating a heterogeneous demographic tapestry that would inflame ethnic tensions in the years to come. Again, we can see similarities with today’s refugee crisis, where nationalist and far-right parties across Europe have won significant support due to people’s perceived threat to their ethnic identify and culture.

A far-right march in Austria, 2017

Erdogan may be hastening his own demise with his reckless response to the refugee crisis, simultaneously undermining the stability of his Middle Eastern and European neighbours. Yet it’s fair to say that the international community has not done nearly enough to address the humanitarian, economic and infrastructural issues arising from one of the biggest forced population movements of the last century.

Syria has become a stale topic, a hopeless, never-ending situation comparable to the unsolvable Israel-Palestine conflict or the anarchic grasp in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

It is all very well for European states to shut their borders, turn inwards and pretend that the world outside doesn’t exist. However, this will only cause a bloating of the problem as more refugees pour in from the Middle East, exacerbated by the thousands more entering Europe from North Africa.

As ruthless and paranoid as the Ottoman sultans? Erdogan on the warpath

The crisis of 2015 may only have been a taste of what was to come. Europe stands on the brink, vulnerable to the paranoid actions of a threatened despot in Turkey and internal divisions relating to race and culture. The political and geographic map of the world’s most stable continent might be less secure than one might imagine. An uncontrollable bloating invariably leads to explosion.

Further reading

Glenny, M. The Balkans 1804-2012: Nationalism, War and The Great Powers (2012)