Editor’s Note: Holly Thomas is a writer and editor based in London. She tweets @HolstaT. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author. View more opinion articles on CNN.
Britain hasn’t produced many cheerful global news stories lately. But the arrival of Meghan and Harry’s first child, a son born at 05:26 BST Monday morning, has sent ripples of delight across the UK and around the world. The leaders of UK political parties, the Obamas, world leaders and celebrities, in the words of Meghan’s former “Suits” co-star Patrick J. Adams, were all thrilled that “the world just got heavier by 7 pounds and 3 ounces.” His name? Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor.
When the couple showed off their son for the first time, Twitter lit up with praise for Meghan, who, like Kate Middleton, showed off her “real” postpartum body – albeit in a white dress with heels.
While any addition to the royal family tends to prompt great excitement and forensic examination of every detail, this one is distinct in several obvious ways. The boy could have dual UK-US citizenship and bring American traditions into the royal household. He is biracial. He reportedly has a gender-neutral nursery, and both his parents are self-declared feminists. Media outlets have enthusiastically declared that his birth is a “break from tradition.” But for all these differences and others, the proof of the newest royal as a force for progress is yet to unfold.
If Meghan and Harry’s son has dual nationality, this could have significance beyond any special relationship between Britain and the United States. Politically, it’s a superficial balm in an uncertain world. On a personal level, it could mean a great deal to the many people whose real-life families are comprised of relatives from different countries and continents, and who celebrate national holidays thousands of miles from Britain.
The outpouring of love across the UK for the new baby also throws into absurd relief so much nonsense about what it “means” to be British. Over the fractious course of the Brexit debate, that question has been tossed about constantly to a soundtrack of heated – and often aggressive – arguments, with few conclusions drawn.
A recent YouGov-Cambridge Globalism survey released in partnership with The Guardian showed that nearly 40% of “leave” voters believed it was “very important” that both a person’s parents be British for them to be truly British themselves. Irrespective of anyone’s feelings toward the royal family, their status as a British institution is generally regarded as unassailable.
If being British matters, Harry and Meghan’s baby should demonstrate that it needn’t depend on the happenstance of parentage nor the exclusion or denial of any wider heritage. A child can be as British as the Windsors and as American as Hollywood, and neither need diminish the other.
Another aspect of the baby’s identity also tied up in ideas of heritage, and also in receipt of excited global attention, is his position as the first contemporary biracial royal by birth.
When Meghan Markle married Prince Harry, she was drawn into a colorism debate which often suggested that she was only accepted into the royal family because, compared with many black people, she is relatively pale. As awkward and unrelatable as Meghan’s sudden ascendance to global touchpoint was, the discussion around an aspect of her physical appearance over which she has no control is relatable for many.
Likewise, unlike the rest of the modern royal family, Archie may face scrutiny over the color of his skin, and which of his parents he most resembles. Though it is ridiculous that a baby’s skin color is ever up for comment, the fact that the new royal may not look exactly like his close relatives means his otherwise extraordinary life experience reflects that of more diverse demographics.
In the longer term, much of the new royal’s significance will depend upon how he chooses to spend his life. He will have the opportunity to pursue an independent career, and the direction of that career may well set the tone for his public influence. Both of his parents have done valuable, progressive work – Meghan with the United Nations on gender equality, among many other roles, and Harry with extensive charity pursuits. But the template of their lives is largely old fashioned.
Much of the couple’s work focuses on the symptoms, rather than the causes, of inequality. So, while the awareness and resources it raises is valuable, its affects are limited. Throughout history, the generous among the privileged have supported charity, but rarely in ways that affect the status quo. For example, Meghan’s support of the Grenfell Tower cookbook, though comforting and sympathetic, had no impact at all on the systemic poverty which lead to that tragedy.
Get our free weekly newsletter
As for the couple’s feminism, Meghan gave up her acting career when she became engaged to Prince Harry. And their son’s birth announcement on Instagram had a deep blue background so, even superficially, their message of breaking with tradition seems a little inconsistent. Meghan and Harry’s approach looks progressive in the context of the British royal family, but it is hardly radical in that of the wider world. Perhaps, given his slightly greater latitude, their son might be able to take their avowed feminism a little further.