{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreiawxgsz7t3fbz3msreijxfdbfncq6cv43vrtbc2wnexmb7fs7yrfm",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:oznbnvgr7dmvddiyvr7dih52/app.bsky.feed.post/3mjhsjlz3ksn2"
  },
  "coverImage": {
    "$type": "blob",
    "ref": {
      "$link": "bafkreidadby52tmxgiwfu5uobj5deuj7qx2yl3eplnhajhrof54cokeice"
    },
    "mimeType": "image/jpeg",
    "size": 93367
  },
  "path": "/opinion/prince-harry-meghan-markle-australia",
  "publishedAt": "2026-04-14T16:13:30.000Z",
  "site": "https://www.gbnews.com",
  "tags": [
    "Membership"
  ],
  "textContent": "\n\n\nCall me naïve, but I was genuinely surprised to see the Sussexes referring to their children as “Prince Archie” and “Princess Lilibet” in a very domestic scene engaging in Easter activities on social media.\n\nThis wasn’t a formal dinner: they were painting eggs for god’s sake.\n\nThere’s something deeply unsettling about watching a couple publicly reject an institution, with great moral flourish, only to cling to the very symbols of that same institution when it suits them.\n\n“The Sussexes” have now spent several years distancing themselves from the Royal Family, criticising it, exposing it as outdated and insisting that it caused them harm, so why on earth would they choose to frame their children within that same system?\n\nWhy lean into titles that are, by definition, rooted in the very structure you’ve worked so hard to dismantle?\n\nIt’s contradictory and speaks of shallowness: style over substance – like a flower on a cake that everyone smiles politely at, but nobody wants to eat.\n\nAnd remember, it’s not as though these criticisms of The Royals were vague or fleeting. During the Oprah interview, one of the most high-profile moments in recent royal history, Meghan spoke about concerns raised within the Royal Family about how dark her child’s skin might be. It was a serious and deeply damaging allegation that reverberated around the world and fundamentally reshaped public perceptions of the monarchy.\n\nSince then, there have been documentaries, interviews and a steady stream of commentary reinforcing the message that their experience within the institution was painful, isolating and at times intolerable.\n\n###\n\n\n\n\nWhich makes this all the more difficult to reconcile…\n\nTheir behaviour taps into something much broader happening culturally right now. We’re living through an era in which “cut-off culture” has taken hold, particularly among Millennials and Gen Z, where estrangement from family has become shockingly common and is even encouraged as a form of empowerment.\n\nSocial media is now awash with psychologists such as the brilliant Tania Khazaal, working round-the-clock to help estranged families with reconciliation, communication and rebuilding fractured relationships.\n\nKhazaal speaks of an enormous social problem in which “entitled” young people use ego-laden phrases to justify rejecting their families, such as “I’m protecting my peace”, while onlookers applaud them for “choosing themselves” over parents just doing their best.\n\n“You don’t heal by running away from your family,” says Khazaal, adding: “We live in a cowardly culture where blaming your family is easier than fixing yourself.” Ouch. She might want to reach out to Harry…\n\nTraditionally, families might reach this stage as a last resort. But increasingly it’s become a default response from entitled young adults flouncing off from the people who raised them as a mode of “self-preservation”.\n\nIt is much harder to stick around and have difficult conversations with people who love you. Harry and Meghan’s estrangement from The Royals is striking because they have normalised, embodied and amplified this heartbreaking trend. They have done a sterling job of consolidating the pernicious modern belief that family is overrated.\n\n###\n\n\n\n\n###\n\n\n\n\nBut they have added a layer of hypocrisy to their family schism: on one hand, they have created a narrative of stepping away, of drawing boundaries and of rejecting family structures deemed harmful.\n\nOn the other there’s a simultaneous desire to retain the status with which Harry (not Meghan!) was born - identity and benefits that come from those same structures. It’s a paradox to which they are both clearly tone deaf.\n\nYou can’t have it both ways. You can’t denounce the monarchy as outdated, oppressive or toxic and then selectively embrace its perks when they offer social cachet.\n\nTitles aren’t just decorative labels; they represent a hierarchy, a history and a set of values. If those values are so objectionable, why pass them on?\n\nAnd more to the point, why involve your children in that contradiction? Being a Royal is to live within a complex gilded cage: precisely what Harry has been moaning about! But if the structure and expectations are so repressive, why not remove your children altogether from such constraints?\n\nBecause it seems increasingly obvious that these two are not driven by values – they’re attracted to material wealth – and they have their fingers crossed beneath the hand-hewn oak table in the Montecito garden that these titles will make their kids rich.\n\nArchie and Lilibet have the worst of both worlds: titles they never earned and will not work for in any traditionally Royal capacity, whilst also growing up believing they must be inherently ‘special’ compared to their peers….Oh lordy, god help any parent who raises children who think they were simply born better than anyone else…\n\nThe reason William, Kate, Zara and Peter Phillips have not gone loco-down-in-Acapulco like their lost-in-showbiz relatives is precisely because they have groups of ‘normal’ friends and (in Katherine’s case, especially) non-blue-blooded family who offer immense grounding.\n\nArchie and Lilibet risk growing up not knowing who to trust: are their friends going to be real when the birthday invitation requests attendance at “Prince” Archie’s 16th?\n\nAnd he won’t be able to pick up the phone to Cousin George and ask: “Bruv, how do you know who a proper mate is and who’s only in it for the prince stuff?”\n\nThese titles have guaranteed that the Sussex kids will always feel alone.\n\nAnd just imagine the conversations which start with, “So, mum, let me get this straight…I was about to live at the centre of the most privileged family in the world, with unimaginable financial and professional security, plus a wide group of loving relatives united by being, er, Royal and you…you...fell out with them?!”\n\nMaybe they will have answers to all of these questions. But Harry and Meghan will never allow any journalist with such enquiries to get close, so we will never know.\n\nAnd they evidently reject any outsider who might hold up a mirror to such blatant crackpot vanity.\n\nThere’s also the growing unease around how this all plays out internationally. The controversy surrounding the Sussexes’ activities in Australia, particularly the perception that they are leveraging their royal association for commercial gain, only adds another layer.\n\nIt reinforces the sense that while the ties may be publicly loosened, they are privately and profitably maintained – it is stomach-churning.\n\nMeghan and Harry, before them - and now Archie and Lilibet – are truly symbols of the “entitled” generation – quite literally - no consistency, no authenticity and no effort for the title they believe will bring benefits.\n\nThe principles these parents have tried to present to the public appear to bear no resemblance to the choices being made behind the scenes. And people all over the world are increasingly wise to this hypocrisy.",
  "title": "Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's latest stunt reeks of entitlement. You can't have it both ways - Bev Turner"
}