Going against the grain on the Harry-Meghan story

 

The late Queen Elizabeth II banned the use of the titles Duke and Duchess of Windsor after the death of Wallis Simpson in 1986, supposedly because it was irretrievably “sullied,” which was more a reflection of the juvenile 50-year grudge that Elizabeth and the queen mother still bore against Simpson. Although Elizabeth herself was untouched—thanks largely to the immunity the press granted her—her reign was scandal-plagued, with the actual behavior of her sister Margaret and sons Andrew and the current king in the past rather more “scandalous” than that of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle:

 

 

The fact that the Sussexes have had the audacity to say that “we tried to play the game and you just shit on us, so see you later” and then providing the reasons that are at least clear to themselves finds even the American press joining the British press in vitriolic outrage. They are acting like spoiled, privileged children it is said, and Meghan is the evil gold-digging temptress who doesn’t know her “place.” You really think she signed-up for all this drama?

But can you (as an American, not as a snooty, self-important Brit complaining about what kind of shoes Meghan wears)  name anything that Meghan—and Harry, for that matter—has actually done "wrong" since their marriage other than not having the good manners to just shut-up about the level of “acceptance” and support they perceive as  lacking even from  palace functionaries who are supposed to "serve" their needs? 

Of the latter I am reminded of the British series Yes, Minister, where Sir Humphrey—technically the subordinate required to do the bidding of whoever the current minister of his department wants—is being patronizing while constantly thwarting the minister’s policy desires from a self-superior attitude ingrained solely from his double-talking longevity in his position (the probable reason why he was even deemed worthy of “knighthood”).

Neither Harry nor Meghan have been accused of such things as cozying-up to genocidal dictators, openly committing adultery or hobnobbing with accused pedophiles...

 

...like some other members of the royal family past and present. There are some (like myself) who have made comparisons to Meghan’s situation to that of Simpson, the subject of much vitriol from the British press, the royal family and the British government, but these comparisons have their limits as well—and not necessarily to Meghan’s discredit.

I admit that Harry and Meghan refusing to play the game anymore has opened them up to that vitriol, but they are currently not the public parasites the rest of the royal family is, since they have been cut-off from most "royal" funding and are trying to be “self-sufficient,” which must be driving the rest of the clan nuts. You think that "The Firm" doesn't want to see them fail? Of course they do. Here in America we should be supporting their efforts not to be a "public charge." Just because some people don’t like the way they are doing it is tough luck.

Back to comparisons, there are those who still insist that Simpson was in “love” in Edward, and she no doubt made efforts to “fit in,” but these efforts were rejected out of hand; Winston Churchill for one supported Simpson, and bemoaned the opposition of the British press and government against her, and even proposed a “morganatic” marriage that would “allow” Edward to keep his throne without the whole British government resigning in “protest.”

This compromise was rejected by the prime minister at the time, Stanley Baldwin, who it seems was the subject of “speculation” of whether he was a “friend” of Edward—or in fact wanted to see him removed from the throne, and the Simpson controversy was perfect to achieving this end. To what extent “commoners” shared this “outrage” is also subject to some speculation, but the government certainly persuaded the British press to aid it in this endeavor.

But there are others—in fact, most others—who believe that Simpson, who grew-up in at best very modest means, was a committed social climber who slept her way to what she hoped was the “top.” She married a shipping magnate, but then set her eyes on the next “prize”—a prince in line for the British throne who she encountered at a party, and was friends with a woman whose sister was Edward’s current mistress, and Simpson quickly ingratiated herself with Edward to replace her.

Edward, however, became smitten, and it was already well-known by his closest advisors for a decade before he became king that he really wasn’t suited for that office temperamentally, morally or ethically, which was found to be quite disturbing. In his 1951 memoir, he stated he was in “unconscious rebellion” against the “lonely” position of king. 

But if he himself was in a take-it-or-leave-it mindset, Simpson had her “heart” set not in Edward as a person, but as “king.” When he decided to marry her and abdicate, she begged him to “reconsider” giving up his throne: maybe she “preferred” just being the “mistress” of a king, or she wanted him to keep fighting; but one thing that was certain is that it wasn't her plan to marry him if he wasn’t king.

In the end, Simpson apparently thought that she had no choice since Edward had sacrificed "everything" for her love—if in fact she ever did love him, which some doubt with reason. We know that in Edward’s mind that this was a “win-win” for him, because he didn’t want to be king anyways, which he found “dull” and intrusive.   

On the other hand we can speculate that Harry’s position as a royal made him an “eligible” bachelor, but he did have a choice in the matter, and it helped that Meghan was at least “willing” when his own interest was known. We may even speculate that he saw in Meghan a willing ally in upsetting the “status quo” in the royal family, which he found to be treating him like a “spare” even as he served in active duty putting his own life in danger in Afghanistan.

We are told that Edward and Simpson themselves didn’t have much in common and rarely conversed with each other when they were alone in private; this is certainly not the case with Harry and Meghan, who seem to have at least one thing in common—their gripes about how they have been treated. Unlike Harry who has now come under attack, Edward was always viewed as the love-smitten “victim” of Simpson. Harry on the other hand is seen as Meghan’s accomplice in "rebellion," and vice-versa. 

I mean let’s be honest about this: Meghan’s “black Americanism” is certainly stereotyped in a negative way in Britain, and in the end those assumptions fueled by some outrageously petty criticisms of things she did “wrong” while she was still trying to play the "game" right, became a predictable self-fulfilling prophecy.

On the other hand as noted, Edward wanted “out,” and royal family was so dead-set against Simpson and granting her any kind of accommodation or allowing her to represent them in public that the Windsors had little choice but to go into exile in France. Was "Megxit" avoidable? Why must we insist that Harry and Meghan have had skins of iron? They couldn't escape the tabloid headlines or the constant barrage of complaints by etiquette warriors with their vomit-inducing accents without closing their minds completely. Harry and Meghan are human just like the rest of us.

Of course, unlike Harry and Meghan, Edward and Simpson being forced to leave the country only caused more embarrassing behavior that could have been avoided if they were treated civilly by the royal clan. The House of Windsor actually had a German heritage; in fact there was considerable German “blood” running through British royal veins since 1700. So it is no “surprise” that Edward and Simpson welcomed the attention of the then current German leadership, which happened to be headed by none other than Adolf Hitler. 

 

Edward was a known anti-Semite, and Simpson went along given her predilection toward being seen in the company of those in elevated social positions. During the war after the Windsors fled France to neutral Spain, Churchill thought it necessary to send them off to a position in the Bahamas to prevent them from becoming a further embarrassment—and even being perceived as “traitorous” when it became known that German agents were offering Edward a figurehead position in a potential German-ruled Britain.

If Harry and Meghan are “traitors” to anything, it is to the notion that they have "rebelled" against existing to “serve” as placeholders to silly royal functions; Harry has made known his desire to serve the charitable foundations which his involvement served a useful PR purpose, yet he has been denied even this right out of petty spite by “The Firm.” For her part, Meghan has been under attack by the “white” side of her family, mostly a bunch of loafers and layabouts who probably are going “green” with envy by her success as an actress and beyond.

So, yes, I am going against the grain here in the face of what seems to be close to universal condemnation of the Sussexes—Meghan in particular—and the hypocritical defense of the other royals. So be it. I know what I see.