Yesterday, the duke and duchess of Cambridge returned from their Caribbean Commonwealth tour to report their experience to the Queen. In perhaps a challenging discussion, they will have recounted a tour that started with protestors cancelling their first destination, to then finish with questions being raised over the future of the Commonwealth itself. 

How did a tour meant to build support for the Queen’s platinum jubilee go so wrong? More importantly, does this really indicate future problems for the monarchy and the Commonwealth? 

The royal pair were beset by unusually poor PR failures early on. Belize’s Q’eqehi Maya people protested at their helicopter landing due to land disputes with a charity that William is a patron of. After leaving, a Belize government minister then announced a new commission to begin the country’s “decolonisation process”. 

Jamaica did not start well either. A photo op with Rahim Sterling, likely to show racial solidarity after the world cup controversies, backfired due to poor photo angles. The couple did later join walking tours amongst the public, though unfortunate photos of young black children reaching out through the pitch’s wire fences smacked of white saviourism. That trip ended with the Jamaican prime minister stating, to their faces, on national television, that Jamaica would now be moving towards a republic. 

In an unprecedented break in royal protocol, William finished the trip with a speech openly addressing the issues faced along the way. Backdropped by calls for Bahama slavery reparations, William stated that it is for the Commonwealth’s people to decide their future, and that he is content to not head the Commonwealth as long as it can “create a better future for the people who form it”. 

How did the future king come to end a publicity trip by conceding his family’s sole right to lead the Commonwealth? 

Royal aides have stated that host nations led the PR events and that these would be thoroughly scrutinised in future. Poor PR aside, you cannot ignore the contentious political context which leads some to suggest the trip should have been cancelled. 

There are ongoing global debates about racism and colonialism; Meghan Markle’s unresolved claims to royal family racism are still fresh; the UK’s recent immigration policy failings did directly affect legal Caribbean migrants; and we cannot ignore how accusations of  Prince Andrew’s sexual misconduct have potentially primed support for republican movements. 

However, these points would not excuse royalty from uncomfortable questions about their purpose if they were merely to cancel publicity events. If they wish to reverse the tide of Caribbean republican movements, it is upon the royal family to develop a new narrative. They must address past injustices whilst creating an authentically diverse and inclusive common cause once more.  

Ultimately, while the monarchy only represents the Commonwealth brand, its success will be determined by the UK government’s ability to produce policies that demonstrate commitment to the Commonwealth.