Divorced
A Nazi sympathiser
Too old to produce heirs
Not royal, aristocracy or anything noble at all
Having fairly indiscreet affairs during her relationship with Edward
From multiple reliable sources, rude to staff and Edward’s family and generally not a very nice person.
Her being American was completely irrelevant compared to the rest.
Edward was a playboy who didn’t always appreciate the royal duties he was supposed to be performing, and also a Nazi sympathiser. He was charming and quite popular but not very Kingly. He’d have been a disaster as King. If he’d stayed single or married someone more suitable, who might have helped him change, then he probably would have stayed King, but he didn’t.
And all this was just twenty or so years after George V’s cousin Nicholas was killed, and loads of their other cousins were deposed; you can bet the Royals and their advisors were cautious about anything at all - even a succession to a niece - that might cause the populace to turn against the Royals.
It’s also very right wing for a British publication, meaning they’re more likely to dislike a mixed-race American divorced actress. If those are the results for that newspaper, it indicates that the general populace like her a lot more, of those who care at all.
I’ve never seen a single negative thing about her posted by any of my Facebook friends, and lots of positive things, and the wedding was hugely popular.
However, on Quora, the question site, there are always bots posting questions about why Meghan Markle is so hated, etc. It’s not true that she is, but if you ask the same question often enough, people start to treat it as valid. All the same, the vast majority of the responses from Brits will say she’s not hated at all, actually.
Jackmanii - no, the Brits are not still pissed off about Wallis Simpson. I’m not sure why you’d assume that just because an American asked a question about her on an American messageboard.
I don’t think many ever were, apart from the Queen Mother, who was said to blame her for George VI’s ill-health and early death (and I assume Queen Mary agreed). Court insiders and the political establishment probably heaved a sigh of relief that they were given such an easy opportunity to be rid of Edward as much as her.
Most of the argument was simply kept from the general public till practically the last minute, and once the fuss was over, everything settled down again, helped by some pomp and circumstance with the Coronation and successful state visits to France and the US, and a fair helping of “happy family” publicity with their daughters.
It wasn’t an easy opportunity; the whole thing was incredibly painful, very divisive and very damaging to the institution of the monarchy. Gettiing rid of a not-very-competent monarch of dubious political instincts might have been seen as a silver lining to the cloud, but it was derfinitely a cloud.
Exactly. Things were different in 1936. For one, Edward was the Prince of Wales and heir to the throne. Wallis was twice divorced, and possibly bigamous due to a probably overlap of two of the marriages, and was regarded as a social climber.
Fast forward to the new millennium. Dirty Harry is 6th in line to the throne, so his chances at polishing the royal chair and minimal, short of some bizarre catastrophe - and the royals try to avoid congregating in such a way that such a thing could happen. This means that it matter far less who he marries. And social attitudes have changed hugely in the intervening 80 years. Divorcees are accepted now, partly due to the situation in Norway, but note that Charles gets a lot of flak over Camilla because she divorced her hubby. Meghan had a regular divorce, nobody is complaining. Camilla’s case is seen and being somewhat underhand.
The race issue might have cripped up if it was Charlie marrying someone not of 100% Caucasian ancestry, but since Harry is further down the list, nobody cares. Apart from the usual bigots, of which the UK does have a good share, I am sorry to say. Mostly working class, mostly reading the crappy tabloids that try to maintain their circulation with contrived exposes of the royals.
Obviously, people do make comparisons with Edward and Wallis, given the common factor of a divorced American woman. But it quickly becomes obvious that the two situations are different, and the same questions would arise regard of nationality if a royal wanted to marry a divorcee or someone of another race.
I think the flak Charles gets is about the popular understanding of the circumstances of his first marriage and its dissolution, not the fact that Camilla is herself divorced.
> Divorcees are accepted now, partly due to the situation in Norway, but note that
> Charles gets a lot of flak over Camilla because she divorced her hubby.
Nobody explained this in this thread, so let me do so. The Crown Prince of Norway married a woman who had a child by a man she wasn’t married to. She therefore wasn’t divorced. She had a background that was rather unconventional:
FWIW, since it was brought up earlier, I wouldn’t expect everyone in the UK to know what the Boston Tea Party was either. But I would expect people to know that the US was once a British colony. They’re very different levels of knowledge.
I know the Boston Tea Party is really important in American history, but in the UK it was just another event among many. It’s covered in some history syllabuses but not all, because there’s so much to cover. But there’s huge pop culture knowledge about the US being a former colony - it’s still joked about by stand-up comedians and in sitcoms and doesn’t require any education to know at all. Hamilton is absolutely huge in the theatre at the moment, popular among lots of demographics who don’t always go to the theatre, and if the majority of Brits truly didn’t know something as basic as the USA was once a colony of the US then it wouldn’t even have got a West End venue.
Family. The bookish cousin you don’t see all that often, but when you do the conversation just continues as if there had never been a gap at all. The slightly distant but highly trusted family member you’d be most likely to name as executor of your Will.
I shall now proceed to categorise the other Realms in wildly simplistic but affectionate family terms, then move onto the wider Commonwealth, and then to the delinquent bad boys who should be in jail like the United Sta-
Well, we did try to bring them with us (by force) when we split from the UK. And our first Constitution allowed them to become states without requiring the approval from Congress that other territories needed.
Today, it’s handy to be cited as the place we’ll move to if that SOB gets re-elected, if …
Oh, and it’s a beautiful place to visit on vacation.
