What makes an identity?

Secondary question: Are we entitled (do we even want) to have one pre-defined?

Photo by Jared Subia on Unsplash

Prince Joachim of Denmark is upset. The second son of Queen Margrethe II has ever had a complicated relationship with his royal duties and, indeed, public life in general. When in his 20s, and married to his first wife, he was regarded in some ways as the more mature brother. He was married, his elder brother was not, and thus went the shallow reasoning of the public, that since one is married with kids, while the other remains an aimless bachelor, so the former must be happier and more steady. Time passed, and the fortunes did sharply turn for the brothers. At least as far as the perspective of the public went, it certainly seemed that things had dramatically shifted in the dynamics between the two brothers. Crown Prince Frederik, elder brother, formed what was portrayed as a fairytale marriage with an Australian named Mary Donaldson. Their falling-in-love story became the stuff of Hollywood movies. Married in 2004, Frederik and Mary were loosely the inspiration behind a highly formulaic and ridiculous movie that came out in the same year. The Prince & Me told the story of a fictional Danish prince (Luke Mably) who goes to Wisconsin to find himself and, of course, as would happen, fell in love with the antithesis of any other girl he had ever known—a badass, sassy pre-med student, born and bred in Wisconsin (Julia Stiles). The movie has nothing in common with the real-life story of Prince Fred and Mary from Tasmania, but since it roughly coincided with the royal wedding, and made use of a fictional, bad-boy Danish prince in its plot, there was bound to be the question, “Is this real?” The two events in their own ways ignited more worldwide interest in Denmark’s royalty than had, perhaps, ever existed before. Mary Donaldson, overnight, became a darling in Australia’s media. In America, where the movie was made and marketed, there was the dawning of a wider realization that royalty is not exclusively a British thing. Meanwhile, Prince Joachim’s marriage was falling apart. He divorced Alexandra Manley (after a ten-year marriage that produced two boys, Nikolai and Felix) and neither wasted any time in moving on with other people. Alexandra remarried first, bought a new mansion, and went around with a new title—Countess of Fredericksborg—bestowed on her by the Queen. Joachim wasn’t far behind, though. He married a quaintly pretty, slightly younger French-Swiss woman named Marie Cavallier. The new Princess Marie, supremely educated and multilingual, endured endless comparisons to Crown Princess Mary, to Joachim’s first wife, and no less to that patron saint of all princess-kind, Lady Diana Spencer, against whom all royal ladies are measured in one respect or another, usually fashion. Marie bears it well. She smiles a lot. She and Joachim have two children between them, besides the two sons, now adults, who he brought into the marriage. With a beautiful estate and castle in Southern Jutland, a charming wife, and healthy children, you could be forgiven for wondering what cause Prince Joachim has to be upset enough to complain in public.

Joachim is displeased about his mother’s decision to take royal status and titles away from his children. It has all come about this week, justified by the Queen in her attempt to scale down the working size and expenses of the monarchy. Joachim’s kids were never strictly royal to begin with. Instead of the “Royal Highness” prefix in front of their names, they only had plain His or Her Highness (sans royal). Nevertheless, the new decision from their grandmother, the Queen, makes a big difference because on the first day of the new year, 2023, they will be demoted from Highness to Excellency, and they will only be entitled to an aristocratic title claimed by the Queen’s late husband, French-born Prince Henrik—née Henri, Count of Monpezat. Joachim has spoken out, expressing much displeasure about the decision. He has told the press that he is upset more with the accelerated timing of the action than the act itself. He was told that something like this might be in the works back in May, but that suddenly everything dropped, and he feels that he and his family weren’t given enough time to process the change.

Identity! Prince Joachim has made the bold suggestion that his children have lost their identity! “On May 5,” he began, “I was presented with a plan: that my children’s identities would be taken away from them when each of them turned 25. Athena will be 11 in January. And then I was given five days’ notice because the decision was accelerated.”¹ He doesn’t understand why the decision was accelerated. “Initially, I asked for time to think and give my opinion. They [should have taken] it into account.” He lamented also: “I can tell that my children sad. My children don’t know which way to stand, [or] what to believe. Why should their identity be taken away from them? Why should they be punished like this?”

His use of the words “identity” and “punished” is fascinating to me. He is saying that his children were identified with their titles, as if these titles were tied to the very essence of their being. He sees it as a punishment that they are now deprived of these titles. If indeed his children—Nikolai, 23; Felix, 20; Henrik, 13; and Athena, 10—have their identities wrapped up in the status of Highness and the titles of Prince/Princess, then it would absolutely feel like a punishment to be deprived thereof. The loss of something we hold dear is felt as such—a punishment, an injustice, profoundly unfair. It is the pulling away of something to which we have become attached—a favorite piece of jewelry, a coveted photo, a sentimental piece of furniture, artwork, or some other possession that might give us a sense of closeness to a beloved person who has died. People who lost “everything” in a natural disaster feel this the most, more than anyone else. They have, after all, lost everything—house, possessions, and the sense of security and stability these things represented. So it is very interesting to me that Prince Joachim has phrased his grievance in such a way that attempts to put his children’s loss (of the title of prince and the status of highness) on a footing with people who lost “everything”—those possessions that masquerade as representations of the very core of who they are and what they love.

Royal expenditures and royal titles, and the question of who gets them, of who is entitled them are at the heart of the royal-watching media since the accession to the British throne of King Charles III. A law—by name, a Letters Patent—that was passed in the reign of his great-grandfather, King George V, lays out that all children and male-line grandchildren of the monarch shall be entitled to the status HRH (His/Her Royal Highness) and the title of prince/princess; and this entitlement extends to the heir’s children, and the heir to the heir, so basically, those in the direct line of succession. In the reign of the late Queen, Elizabeth II, this meant that her four children and male-line grandchildren were entitled to the royal status—so, Charles, William, Harry; Anne, but not her children, because they are female-line descendants; Andrew, his daughters, Beatrice and Eugenie; and Edward, as well as his children, James and Louise.² Now, in the reign of Charles, longtime proponent of a scaled down monarchy, everything is being reorganized.³ There is no question about those in the direct line of succession—William, the Prince of Wales, and his eldest son, Prince George. But the heat, so to speak, is turned up when it comes to his recalcitrant younger son, Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex. Harry has truly and fully departed from royal tradition. He has been wayward in direction, as opposed to following the more predictable option of living in the UK and embracing the grueling “work” of smiling, waving, unveiling plaques, and cutting ribbons. Most of you will know the broad strokes of his exit, right? Harry and his wife, Meghan, née Markle, shirked off the shackles of royal duty in 2020, in favor of celebrity luster in dry, sunny mid-coastal California. They cited “financial independence” and a normal life for their kids as part of their renewed priorities. “Harry and Meghan” are the podcasting royals who, unlike typical royals, don’t shy away from association with controversial and partisan politics. Security, though, is expensive, and, in view perhaps of obtaining taxpayer-subsidized bodyguards for the school runs, Harry wants retroactive titles for his children, Archie and Lilibet. The British royal website (royal.uk) continues to call them plain Master Archie and Miss Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor.⁴

When King Charles made a televised address on his initial return to London after his mother’s passing, he elevated his first son, William, to the title of Prince of Wales and then he referred, in just one sentence, to his second son and that son’s wife as just “Harry and Meghan.” He said: “As my Heir, William now assumes the Scottish titles which have meant so much to me. He succeeds me as Duke of Cornwall and takes on the responsibilities for the Duchy of Cornwall which I have undertaken for more than five decades. Today, I am proud to create him Prince of Wales, Tywysog Cymru, the country whose title I have been so greatly privileged to bear during so much of my life and duty. With Catherine beside him, our new Prince and Princess of Wales will, I know, continue to inspire and lead our national conversations, helping to bring the marginal to the center ground where vital help can be given. I want also to express my love for Harry and Meghan as they continue to build their lives overseas.”⁵

The case in Denmark is interesting because of the reaction from Prince Joachim, who explicitly said that his children feel that their “identity” has been taken from them, and moreover that they feel “punished.” The case in Britain is interesting because, on the one hand, Britain’s monarchy is also in a state of flux, with people asking what it is for and how big it needs to be. Besides William and Harry, there are the two brothers of the new king (Andrew, Duke of York and Edward, Earl of Wessex) and three very elderly cousins who hold the title of Prince—the Duke of Gloucester, the Duke of Kent, and Prince Michael of Kent. All except three of these—that is, three of the seven adult princes—actually perform royal duties, and all except one live full-time in the United Kingdom.

Andrew lives primarily in England, but since the horrible interview he gave to the BBC in 2019,⁶ he doesn’t perform royal duties, and after the out-of-court settlement with one of Jeffrey Epstein’s victims,⁷ Andrew was stripped of all honorary titles, though he remains Duke of York—a title only an Act of Parliament can take away. He is effectively persona non grata as he is relegated to luxurious seclusion at the Royal Lodge of Windsor. Since his mother’s death, he is caretaker in chief of the corgis.)⁸ As for Harry, he lives primarily in California, but maintains a “grace-and-favor” residence on the Frogmore estate near Windsor.⁹ Lastly, and always least, Prince Michael of Kent is so far down in the line of succession and, being *just* the younger brother of the Duke of Kent, he mostly gains attention only when the media wants to churn out some criticism about the rent at Kensington Palace, where he lives,¹⁰ or cast aspersions on his wife, who we can only call eccentric in the vein of politeness.

It’s an unenviable task that King Charles must undertake—to make the British monarchy relevant, and of reasonable and justifiable size in a time of huge, systemic crises. He was always more confrontational and head-on about issues than his late mother, who tended to act only when she had no choice. I doubt many people will have much sympathy for Prince Joachim’s children, certainly none for Prince Andrew, and to be sure, not a whole lot for Prince Harry. As a colleague of mine put it, “Archie will never have to work at McDonald’s.” Whether he’s Prince Archie or Master Archie, he will never have to take a minimum-wage job. He probably won’t need to work at all. He probably will work, but it will be something he’s passionate about. Archie will have choices in life. He will have the inherited wealth to guarantee solvency. His lack of title will free him from obligations to serve the public. One thing it certainly will not do is give him any sense of identity. Identity (who we are) runs deeper than a title or even a name, contrary to what some might argue. The name or title labels the “form” you; it tells people what to call you. People can call you anything; You are still You regardless of what they call you. (That last you is lower-case because it represents the form you, that is the self, or the you, that operates and functions in this outer realm.) You, with a capital Y, are the inner, the deeper Self who is connected with Consciousness. I’ve talked about this before. “Sartre and the Waiter” is just one of a few articles I’ve published here, in which I explore ideas about Self and Ego. “Make it do” is another one. I think about this a lot, that is what separates us from Consciousness and what is the real greatness of our being. Consciousness unites and expands; ego divides and shrinks. I think the whole notion of deriving a sense of identity from a title is one that tends to shrink the self. It diminishes you from the real expansiveness—only connect, right here and now, if only you can be still enough to sense it. To think that a title will define you is to think in a constricted way. There is more to life, to living, and loving than calling yourself a prince, or being called one by others. And even if you are “lucky” enough to be born into the direct line of succession to a throne, the Who and the What of You, the essence and the core of your being, are so much more than this outer form of prince or princess. You are the light of Consciousness that expands in love. Eckhart Tolle says that our purpose in life is to awaken to the Now, which is the only moment where Consciousness lives, because the past is only a memory and the future is yet to occur. The only thing that is real is the Now, and all of this stuff in the outer life is merely a distraction. E.M. Forster talked about this too. His character Margaret, in Howards End, talks to her sister, Helen, about there being two lives—the outer life, “of telegrams and anger,”¹¹ and the other, deeper life, where everything is connected. “Only connect!” she implores throughout the novel. Everyone can connect, even the children of Prince Joachim of Denmark. If they truly feel a sense of loss from their grandmother’s decision, it is only because they have been taught, erroneously, that they are defined according to royal stratification. As for Archie and Lilibet, I fail to see why they or their future wills must be confined to an “entitlement” set by a monarch in 1917. I hope their parents raise them to understand how utterly devoid of meaning those things are. I’ve heard that their maternal grandmother, Doria Ragland, is an attendee of the Agape International Spiritual Center. That center was founded by a man I’ve met and whom I admire greatly. He is Dr. Michael Bernard Beckwith. He says it perfectly: “So understand, there’s some wholeness in you. Now the question is, are you willing to be great? No, I didn’t say famous. I didn’t say famous; I didn’t say ‘be a celebrity.’ I said, ‘are you willing to be GREAT?’ GREATNESS lies in you becoming more yourself, becoming more conscious of who you are. And when you become more conscious of who you are, there’s greater expression. Greater expression leads to activation of potential you didn’t know was there. Greater activation of potential allows you to go deep into the ocean of bliss. Going into the ocean of bliss allows you feel a greater sense of ecstasy.”¹²

1. Point du Vue magazine. Issue # 3867. Published for the week of 28 September 2022. Prince Joachim’s words were translated from French to English by Instagram user @royaltyandprotocol. Joachim is fluent in both Danish and French. His father was a French noble and his wife is French, and he lives part-time at his father’s French wine estate.

2. James and Louise were entitled to the royal status from birth, but have never used it. Her parents, Prince Edward and Sophie, Earl and Countess of Wessex, prefer them to use the less regal status of earl’s children; thus Louise goes by Lady Louise and James uses his father’s subsidiary title of Viscount Severn.

3. Prince Charles has spoken of his preference for a smaller royal family (that is, a smaller set of what are called “the working royals”) for decades. It is often called the “slim down monarchy” model. The basic idea is to reduce the number of people on the public purse, and thus fewer royals whom the public is obligated to protect in exchange for them having to live so much in the public eye.

Wallis, William. “King Charles looks to ‘slim down’ the monarchy.” The Financial Times (UK). 30 September 2022. https://archive.ph/9Zku7.

4. Ward, Victoria. “Duke and Duchess of Sussex ‘demoted’ on Royal family website.” The Telegraph (UK). 27 September 2022. http://archive.today/6zL5g.

Nikkhah, Roya. “King keeps Harry and Meghan in dark over titles for Archie and Lilibet.” The Times (UK). 25 September 2022. https://archive.ph/d2BDb.

5. Full Transcript: “King Charles III’s Speech.” The New York Times. 9 September 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/09/world/europe/king-charles-speech-transcript.html.

6. BBC Newsnight interview, November 2019: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-50449339.

7. O’Conner, Mary. “Prince Andrew settles US civil sex assault case with Virginia Giuffre.” BBC News. 15 February 2022. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-60393843.

8. Kim, Juliana. “Queen Elizabeth II’s corgis will go to Prince Andrew and his ex-wife.” NPR. 11 September 2022. https://www.npr.org/2022/09/11/1122280385/queen-elizabeth-ii-corgis-prince-andrew.

9. Several articles from the Times and the Telegraph, dated since the death of Queen Elizabeth II, confirm that Harry and Meghan maintain a residence at “Frogmore Cottage” in the UK in addition to their main base in Montecito, CA. These articles are mainly written under the current obsession on the “titles” question.

10. Cockcroft, Lucy. “Prince and Princess Michael of Kent to pay £120,000 rent for Kensington Palace flat.” The Telegraph (UK). https://archive.ph/reOx6.

11. Forster, E. M. Howards End. New York, London, G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1910. Image. Retrieved from the Library of Congress, <www.loc.gov/item/10030577/>.

12. Michael Bernard Beckwith: “Make the commitment to being great.” YouTube. https://youtube.com/shorts/VigghsAJa2k.