Since she arrived in the British royal family, comparisons between Meghan Markle and Wallis Simpson have been a constant, despite the fact that the situation of their partners in the institution is not the same.
On November 27, 2017, Kensington Palace announced Prince Harry's engagement to Meghan Markle. Her status as a divorcee and her American origin quickly brought to mind the memory of Wallis Simpson, the woman who shook the foundations of the British monarchy, as she was the reason why King Edward VIII abdicated in favor of his brother. The day on which Meghan and Harry were presented to the world, there was nothing to predict that, two years later, the memory of the Duchess of Windsor would return with more force, with her long shadow projected on the resignation of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex from their institutional position. .
But the truth is that, leaving aside their marital status and their American origin, these two women have little or nothing to do with each other, nor do their respective resignations from the Crown. The most obvious difference is that, in the case of Wallis, we are talking about the fact that the one who abdicated was Edward VIII, king of the United Kingdom, of the Commonwealth and emperor of India. Meanwhile, Prince Harry occupies sixth place in the line of succession to the throne, so it is practically impossible for him to occupy it, unless some tragedy more typical of 'Game of Thrones' than the British monarchy happens. Therefore, neither the meaning nor the consequences of resignations are the same.
As an intrinsic consequence of his positions within the Crown, his role with respect to the Anglican Church is also different. As monarch, Edward VIII was also the head of the Church, which did not allow marriages with divorced people. Also being the head of the monarchy, he was something totally unthinkable. And in the case of Meghan, although she was also divorced, not only does Harry not hold the head of the Anglican Church, but the law that prevented marriage with a divorced person has already been repealed, so the reasons for his resignation are very different from those presented at the time by Isabel II's uncle.
Long before the then King Edward decided to marry her, Wallis Simpson was already in her sights. She was considered just an American socialite whose greatest achievement had been her two marriages, both to well-off men. Her reputation preceded her and did not exactly help the British people accept her relationship with the monarch. In contrast, Meghan Markle was received at Buckingham with quite a bit - if not joy - compliance: she was seen as a working woman, with some success and very involved in certain social causes, who had also had no problem giving up her career as a actress for joining Prince Harry. The fact that she had been married before was no longer an impediment.
Nor can the role that Meghan Markle and Wallis Simpson have played in each other's resignations be compared. Although in both cases -especially in that of Meghan-, the two have been pointed out as the culprits of these decisions, it is understood that the movement of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex has been a joint decision in which each one has weighed both personal interests as family members. Meanwhile, King Edward's decision was exclusively individual. He explained his abdication because he could not conceive of carrying out his royal duty "without having at his side the woman he loved." But the information from the time states that Wallis Simpson was more than comfortable in her position as the king's lover, without her having any need or intention for the couple's circumstances to change. In fact, the American woman's response when she learned of her decision remains for history: "You can't be more of an idiot."
So, yes, we agree that, with a difference of 84 years, both have played a leading role in what may be the most serious crises of the British monarchy. But neither the circumstances of each of these crises, nor of course their respective consequences, can be compared. Although an attempt has been made to give them both women's names.
