In a surprising twist that has stirred up royal watchers, reports reveal that Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex, along with her children, Archie and Lilibet, are conspicuously absent from the Royal Collection.
This collection, which boasts an extensive archive spanning five centuries, appears to have overlooked the presence of these notable figures entirely.
Imagine wandering through the King’s gallery, admiring portraits of past monarchs, only to realize that one of the most talked-about duchesses in recent history is nowhere to be found.
You might think there would at least be one photograph of Meghan tucked away in the archives, considering her brief tenure as a working royal.
However, it seems the Royal Collection Trust has taken a hard stance, claiming that not a single image of Meghan exists in their vast assortment of royal memorabilia.
And it’s not just Meghan; reports indicate that there are no photos of her children, either.
With millions of items in the collection, it raises eyebrows to think that none of them made the cut.
Before jumping to conclusions, the Royal Collection Trust has stated that their current exhibition, “Royal Portraits: A Century of Photography,” focuses on organized portrait sittings.
They argue that the images selected were meant to illustrate the evolution of royal portrait photography over the years.
While that may seem reasonable, it’s hard to overlook the fact that Meghan and Harry had several formal portraits taken during their time as royals, including their engagement photo and wedding pictures.
So why are they missing?
This absence begs the question: Is it a deliberate snub from King Charles or merely an oversight?
Regardless of the intent, the decision feels harsh, almost comical.
In another twist, Prince Harry also finds himself virtually erased from this exhibition, with the only image of him on display dating back to 1994, when he was just a child.
It’s as if the royal family has decided to rewind time, ignoring the complexities of Harry’s adult life and the challenges he has faced.
Meanwhile, Prince William is prominently featured in five photographs throughout the exhibition, raising eyebrows about favoritism within the royal family.
It’s reminiscent of a parent showcasing their favorite child’s achievements while neglecting the others.
Some may argue that Meghan’s brief stint as a royal doesn’t warrant inclusion, but her impact during that time was undeniable.
She brought a fresh perspective to the monarchy and generated conversations that still resonate today.
The absence of Archie and Lilibet is equally perplexing.
These children are part of the royal lineage, yet there isn’t a single image of them in the collection.
Not even a casual family snapshot.
It’s as if they’ve been wiped off the family tree, which raises questions about the palace’s intentions.
Is this a subtle message to the California branch of the royal family, or simply a media exaggeration?
Either way, it’s a public relations blunder for the monarchy.
The implications of this situation extend beyond mere gossip.
It highlights how the monarchy manages its image and history.
The Royal Collection serves as a curated narrative of royal life, and right now, that narrative seems to exclude significant members of the family.
In an era where representation is crucial, what does it say when a woman of color, who briefly held a royal title, is seemingly erased from the historical record?
Critics might assert that the exhibition’s focus on royal portraiture justifies the exclusion of Meghan and her children.
However, if that’s the case, why are there multiple images of William but none of Harry as an adult?
It raises further questions about consistency and fairness in the royal narrative.
Furthermore, in today’s digital age, where every moment is captured, it’s hard to believe that no official photographs of Archie and Lilibet exist in the royal archives.
The royal family can’t simply wish away the past, no matter how inconvenient it may be.
Meghan was a duchess, Harry remains a prince, and Archie and Lilibet are in the line of succession.
Ignoring these facts only makes the institution appear out of touch and petty.
This kind of exclusion adds fuel to the fire of Harry and Meghan’s claims of feeling unsupported and marginalized during their time in the royal fold.
Interestingly, by omitting Meghan and her children, the Royal Collection Trust has inadvertently placed them at the center of the conversation.
In attempting to minimize their significance, they’ve actually amplified it.
Had there been a few photographs of Meghan and her kids, the topic might not have garnered so much attention.
Instead, their absence has sparked controversy and speculation, keeping the discussion alive.
This situation transcends the personal stories of Meghan and Harry; it reflects how the monarchy presents itself to the world.
The Royal Collection is not just a collection of artifacts; it’s a narrative about identity and legacy.
By trying to portray a flawless royal family, they risk alienating themselves from the public, who crave authenticity and realness.
Ultimately, the monarchy faces a delicate balance.
They must uphold tradition while remaining relevant in a changing world.
Meghan and Harry’s experiences are part of that reality, and acknowledging them could foster a more inclusive narrative.
Including their story, even if complicated, would reflect the diverse society the monarchy represents.
After all, isn’t the human drama—the struggles, the triumphs—what makes the royal family relatable to us all?
