BORN & BRED IN CAPTIVITY

(Note: I am not an expert on the British Monarchy, so this opinion is written from an American, non-royal perspective.)

Institutions are pervasive in human society and none is more apparent than the British Monarchy. Over 1200 years old, the foundations of this institutional system appear to be stolid blocks of unyielding stone and mortar built to last. There are precise and expected ways of believing and behaving within that environment that waver little and that are protected by the Royals themselves and their trusted advisors. There is little impetus to yield to change. Yet, on the surface, it would seem a fairytale world with pageantry and decorum surrounding duty and service. This Royal institution appears to be embraced by the peoples of the UK and the world over. It appears to be a symbol of divine rule and protection for those it serves.

According to the 2022 Netflix documentary, Harry and Meghan, media outlets (especially the tabloids) claim that because the British government and the citizens of the UK pay to support the royals, that the Royals are duty-bound to be available for photographs and interviews and cannot claim needs for privacy. In turn, the Royals are in charge of disseminating the news and their choice of spins to the sanctioned royal news reporters as needed to inform or to influence public opinion. That deal between the two is protected.

Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, embraced their royal duties and outreach to other countries, documenting their love story and their humanitarian work. Until that changed, and the media (explained in the documentary) appeared to turn against Meghan and began to pursue her relentlessly, turning innocuous activity into something dark and negative.

It’s not surprising that Harry, knowing full well what his mother, Princess Diana, suffered at the hands of the media, wanted to protect his wife and growing family, essentially being forced to decide between submission to the Royal Family or to leave the institution altogether. He and Meghan stated that they still wanted to serve and fulfill their Royal duties but to also live in an environment away from the constant media intrusion. The institution seemed more inclined to cut them loose, even removing their security. Harry and Meghan, faced with a choice of submission to a rigid institution or protecting their family, gave up their status as senior Royals and moved first to Canada and then to California.

Prince Harry’s new book, Spare, is due for release on January 10, 2023.

A possible subtitle might be, Born and Raised in Captivity.

Although Harry had some opportunity to experience life outside of the UK (humanitarian work in Africa and joining the armed services), essentially, he’s had to adapt to a new life outside of the UK with his wife and two children. He noted in the documentary that his children have not been subjected to life inside the Royal institution, a completely different life than he had experienced.

Harry and Meghan’s predicament loosely reminded me of the inspiring 1966 movie, Born Free, ironically a British drama, about a couple in Africa who raise a wild orphan lioness cub and then later struggle to teach her how to survive in the wilds of Kenya. They had to teach her how to hunt, to secure a mate, and to gain back her innate survival skills to live free in the wild. The lioness cub seemed to accept the rules of captivity but then had to relearn her natural skills to live on her own as an adult. Prince Harry, much like the lioness, entered an unfamiliar world in many aspects.

Institutions are no more or no less than

sets of agreed upon sets of beliefs.

If one takes a moment to look at the building blocks of institutions, the core building materials are made of thoughts and ideas that take shape and form into a belief or set of beliefs. The more people who agree with the lists of beliefs sets the course for an institution to be born and to prosper. In general, if the foundations of the institution are based on sound reasoning, perhaps scientific basis, on the generational makeup and culture of families, or on the premise to serve others, like the British Monarchy, the solid footing may guarantee long life. But when the institution or the protection of it becomes more important than the people inside of it, that potential breach of trust can be the catalyst for rebellion.

Institutions that fail to serve, support, and uplift its peoples

eventually decay and pass away.

The Queen mother, Elizabeth II, solemnly gave her life to duty and service to her country and its peoples to which she held her entire life. She became a symbol of wisdom, power, and influence in government and to the lives of her British and Commonwealth subjects. The people felt her support, and they loved her for it. She gave her life to service freely, but nevertheless, was a captive of the institution and its high expectations, protocols, and demands. And she then continued the traditions, carrying out the image and illusion of a proper and rigid monarchical life. However, what if she had chosen to leave the monarchy? What if she had felt the need to express herself in a more independent manner? What would the response of the Royal Palace and the world have been?

Are our leaders, whether natural or trained,

obligated to the institution to which they belong?

Another widely accepted and revered institution is Tibetan Buddhism, whose leader, His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, was essentially born and bred in captivity, certainly a more spiritually grounded situation, but still captivity of a sort. The Buddhist belief in reincarnation states that upon the demise of the Dalai Lama (the 13th in this case), a search begins to find an unusual child, the search supported by signs and visions. The child must pass a series of tests, and if it is determined that he is indeed the reincarnation of the former Dalai Lama, he is chosen and later installed. At age four, Tenzin Gyatso was officially declared the 14th Dalai Lama.

Following tradition, the Dalai Lamas were not just the spiritual leaders but also the heads of the Tibetan government. The 14th Dalai Lama was then schooled and trained in government alongside his studies in Buddhism and the tradition of the former Dalai Lamas. The choice to challenge his life and duties or to change his mind about participating simply didn’t exist. Centuries of tradition and culture (since year 1411) went before him and he grew up within that institution. That life and culture, including a deep belief in reincarnation, was part of the daily Tibetan life and still is. However, he appeared to accept his role as spiritual leader without question (much like the Queen) and embraced his studies and duties with enthusiasm and compassion. He is considered the spiritual leader the world over.

But what if the Dalai Lama had experienced such thoughts as, “Is this role for which I’ve been chosen who I truly am? What would my life had been like had I not been selected?” or “What if I’d been given a choice?” When did he notice that he was expected to take on the role of Dalai Lama? Did he ever wonder? An interesting thing about the Dalai Lama: With the 1951 annexation of Tibet by the People’s Republic of China, he was forced into exile at age fourteen, the synchronicity of the universe essentially freeing him from the confines of life in Tibet and causing him to become a world traveler and also a world influence. The institution was forced to open and become flexible.

For a moment, let’s take a brief look at the life and choices of Gautama Siddhartha, who later became the Buddha (enlightened one). He was born into a wealthy royal family and was encouraged and expected to never leave the palace. He was given everything he could ever want but his freedom. He eventually left the palace, which represented the extreme of luxury, and then chose to experience the opposite extreme of poverty, including deep suffering and near death.

Eventually, he decided neither way worked well, and he developed The Middle Way, which led to his enlightenment. Buddha rejected the confines of the institution into which he was born. Instead, he chose to experience a full life of his choosing, his focus centered on ending the suffering of all sentient beings.

Prince Harry, born into the British Royal Family, has also chosen to leave the institution into which he was born. He and Meghan have chosen to experience life free of the oppressive media scrutiny and on their terms with the focus on humanitarian efforts to empower and improve lives.

The Queen Mother accepted and embraced her office, giving her life to service.

His Holiness the Dalai Lama accepted and embraced his role to be the spiritual leader of Tibet. Under political upheaval, he was thrust into the world at large and accepted as a worldwide spiritual leader.

I encourage you to step back and become curious about the institutions into which you were born. Take a moment to identify the ones that most shaped your life. For most of us, we inherited the family and cultural institutions that became the foundation of our belief systems.

Understanding your world from this perspective, would you choose to leave or choose to stay? Or modify it in some way, as Prince Harry and Meghan have chosen to do?