Why did she ever marry him if she didn’t want to follow through with the duties and traditions? The examples of Diana Spencer and Sarah Ferguson should have been enough to make her run in the other direction if she wasn’t truly committed to toeing the royal line.
Americans can dislike the whole idea of monarchy. There are plenty of Brits who believe it’s an outdated institution, too. But there are still many Brits (royalists) who still believe in monarchy and see the royal family is a symbol worth preserving. They feel they get more than their money’s worth.
Charles has indicated in the past that he believes the monarchy should be streamlined, that some of the lesser royals should lose their HRH and be downgraded so there are fewer drains on the English purse. The Duke of York has insisted all along that his daughters get the full royal treatment, including all the bodyguards etc., even though their first cousin, Zara Philips (Princess Ann’s daughter) has lived her entire life perfectly well without all those trappings.
When Charles is king, it will be interesting to see if he follows through on those statements. I think he will make some necessary changes to keep monarchy relevant, and to protect the institution. That could mean downgrading his second son as well as his brothers.
reply
share
Otter (24464)
4 years ago
"Why did she ever marry him if she didn’t want to follow through with the duties and traditions?"
Well, since she was a C-list actress in her mid-thirties when she met him, I think she saw her options as either marrying him and being rich and famous and having to put up with all the wierdness of royal life... or seeing her career evaporate when she hit forty and finding a sales position somewhere. Of course she took Harry, even if she didn't really want to be a working royal! Who wouldn't.
reply
share
whoanelly (1587)
4 years ago
But wasn’t that the problem Harry’s previous gfs had? They didn’t want to have to follow royal protocol for the rest of their lives?
Yeah, C list indeed. I’m American. I have never watched suits nor heard of Markle before the engagement. The impression I got of her came from all the celebrities (e.g. Oprah) saying how special she was, how she was going to revolutionize the monarchy, etc. it was so gag-inducing.
The whole thing about the little bridesmaids going bare-legged to the wedding was positively eye-rolling. If royal protocol was that they should wear tights, and the Duchess of Cambridge (mother of one bridesmaid, and future queen consort) felt that they should follow protocol, why did Markle have to be the stereotypical ugly-American and bridezilla, insisting that they break with royal protocol and go bare-legged?
reply
share
Freword (339)
4 years ago
Highely unlikey
reply
share
Otter (24464)
4 years ago
Harry's previous serious girlfriends have come from VERY rich families, they have all the options in the world and could literally afford to turn down a prince of the blood.
A C-list actress in her thirties from a middle-class family... not so much.
reply
share
Stratego (30583)
4 years ago
"That could mean downgrading his second son as well as his brothers"
I think that's very much possible. It could be why Harry is so eager to create a legacy of his own with a Hollywood actress.
reply
share