On Tuesday, the Berlin arm of Madame Tussauds unveiled two humans wearing wax masks of Prince Harry [last name apparently unknown] and of a pregnant Meghan Markle. The extent to which the masked humans will take on the royal duties of the couple is unclear. We can venture to assume they will, at least, give birth to their own wax-masked royal child. But will this child rule alongside the non-masked child, if the non-masked child — despite not being the heir and being quite far down the line — does at some point become king? Or will the masked child be relegated to a position of servitude? Is either situation “fair”? And what is the meaning of fairness within a monarchy?
There is certainly an argument to be made that the masked child should rule before the plain-faced. We are not born with our masks. We grow them over time — through pain and experience, through trials and tests. We see what works, and we choose how we want to appear. The royals know this better than most. But if you’re born masked? Already able to do the job of smiling, posing, waving, hiding yourself — your uncouth humanity — from literal birth? If you’re born hidden, protected from the world’s pain and cruelty, a layer between you and the endless photo opportunities that you are bound to attend by, I have to imagine, some sort of inherent royal publicity law? All because of your wax mask borne of self-preservation and royalty and the handiwork of Madame Tussauds?
It seems this prince, or whatever the child of a prince is called, might be better prepared.
Maybe the masked child should be king, after all.