MovieChat Forums > Meghan Markle Discussion > Is Meghan Markle the modern day equivale...

Is Meghan Markle the modern day equivalent of Wallis Simpson?

posted 4 years ago by TMC-4 (19408)
18 replies | jump to latest

https://www.quora.com/Is-Meghan-Markle-the-modern-day-equivalent-of-Wallis-Simpson/answer/James-Long-65

American: Check

First met their Royal husband aged 34: Check

Divorcee: Check

Social climber: Check

Under estimated royal life: Check

Wanted a special title(WS, Queen/MM, Princess) and didn’t get it: Check

Caused turmoil in the RF: Check

Loathing from the RF: Pending. Check for Mrs Simpson!

The Queen Mother particularly loathed Mrs Simpson (“that woman”). Only the future when now will be history, will we truly know.

Their respective Husband’s stood down from royal duties: Check

Their Husband’s didn’t want their royal life: Check

[–] Otter (24464) 4 years ago

No.

Wallis was content to stay in the shadows and be the king's mistress, it was David who insisted on marriage no matter what. And Wallis wasnt interested in making big bucks from her title, and didnt divorce her royal after a few years. Stay tuned on the last

[–] 10200 (656) 4 years ago

I don't believe Wallis ever expected to be queen consort - it was fairly obvious that would never fly, but David did pitch a morganatic marriage, which was not accepted, but I'm sure she would have gone along with that and been thrilled to be a duchess or countess or something.

Upon her marriage to Harry, Meghan became Princess Henry of Wales, just the same as Kate is Princess William of Wales, although neither of them use that. Just like Camilla is the Princess of Wales, although she goes by the Duchess of Cornwall because of Diana. They all are princesses by marriage, which is different than being a princess by birth. Diana was never Princess Diana, although the press and everyone called her that.

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12278) 4 years ago

She's not a princess. She is the Duchess of Sussex. Kate is also not a princess. She is the Duchess of Cambridge, and she will not be crowned Queen if William ever rules. There's a huge difference in titles..

[–] whoanelly (1558) 3 years ago

No, you’re wrong. Kate has multiple titles because William does. One of her titles is Princess of the United Kingdom. But because she was not born a princess, she is styled Princess William of Wales.

https://www.insider.com/kate-middleton-royal-title-princess-william-2020-4

And when William becomes King, yes, Kate will be crowned queen — not queen regnant, but queen cosort. There’s a special crown for the consort, last worn by queen Elizabeth’s mother.

https://www.standard.co.uk/insider/royals/kate-middleton-crown-queen-consort-coronation-tiara-jewellery-a4116491.html

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Wallace was better looking w/ no plastic surgery.

[–] Joogle83 (4147) 4 years ago

she irritates me

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Markle isn't Simpson, but Harry is definitely Edward. Only with less intelligence...

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12278) 4 years ago

While the two women do seem to have a lot in common, there are many differences to their situations.

1.) Harry isn't King of England.

2.) Meghan is much prettier than Wallis ever was. (In fact, Wallis was an absolute dog by comparison).

3.) Their wedding was much more elaborate than what Wallis and Edward had.

4.) Harry hasn't quite had to "abdicate" being a prince, though the couple has come very close.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

It's a bit surreal seeing someone describe Markle as "pretty". Everything is relative, I suppose. :)

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12278) 4 years ago

I will be fair with her and say that she is attractive. Much more so than Wallis. If you take a look at photos of Wallis at the time she married ex-King Edward, you can see why people would be shocked that he'd want to marry her at all. Wallis is as ugly as her name.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

I can't manage "attractive". Best I can do is, "unexceptional", "satisfactory", or "middling".

But she doesn't attract me in any way at all. I can't see how she'd attract anyone, unless she tried really, really hard.

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12278) 4 years ago

Wallis or Meghan?

Meghan Markle unfortunately has something in common with Gaston from "Beauty and the Beast." She's attractive on the outside, but if we all got the same vision as Shallow Hal, her inner self would be hideously ugly.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Meghan.

And I don't see her as attractive on the outside, even.

I think she's one of those girls who has to take a LOT of time getting ready to go out.

[–] AmeriGirl26 (12278) 4 years ago

It's possible. She should enjoy her youth while she has it. She's only got 15 years left before her shelf life as an actor expires, and she's gotta get out the botox.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

What are you talking about?

If MSM reports are to be believed, she's in her late 30's, which means in Hollywood terms - IT'S OVER.

Hell, the yacht skank is probably in her early 40's with a ultra high mileage diseased womb that made her barren - meaning, she bought the kid.

[–] Freword (339) 3 years ago

Prove it

[–] stickman38 (3014) 3 years ago

You peeps that are saying Wallis was better looking are nuts! Wallis was not a very attractive woman, she was quite average. Meghan has looks... she was a Deal Or No Deal model for a reason.

And yeah, there are similarities between the two but definitely not when it comes to looks.

[–] Freword (339) 3 years ago