For an institution known for centuries of grimly political matchmaking, the current British royal family boasts a striking number of endearing relationships. There’s Prince William and Kate Middleton, who dated for eight years before marrying, and who seem to genuinely like each other. There’s Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles, a homely pair who fell in love in their 20s, endured decades of (admittedly not always dignified) separation, and found they were still crazy about each other in their 50s. And now, there’s Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, the once-obscure American actress who apparently has won the heart that a dozen blonde British heiresses failed to claim.
News of the relationship between Harry and Meghan broke last fall. Since then, the relationship has progressed quickly, if you believe the gossip press. (And I choose to do so, because it’s 2017 and I’ll take any scrap of good news the world has to offer.) Harry introduced her to his sister-in-law Kate in January. Last weekend, they attended what was apparently their first wedding together as a couple. And this week, Markle wrote an admirable essay for Time about how the stigma around menstruation keeps many girls in developing countries from pursuing an education. It’s a downright Diana-worthy move.
On the surface, Markle is a surprising candidate for future princess-dom. She’s American. She’s divorced. She is three years older than Harry (35 to his 32). She’s a lifestyle blogger. She’s an actress—and not only that, but an actress on the basic-cable drama Suits. But in the post-Wallis Simpson era, the more unlikely a royal match-up, the more romantic.
Markle is also biracial, and the British tabloids’ brutal early coverage of the relationship prompted Harry to make a less-than-classic gesture of gallantry last fall: He had his communications secretary issue a formal press release about her. The release condemned “the wave of abuse and harassment” she had suffered at the hands of the British press, and called her “his girlfriend” with swoon-worthy forthrightness. “Prince Harry is worried about Ms. Markle’s safety and is deeply disappointed that he has not been able to protect her,” it read. Chivalry lives!
The press release was the first hint that Markle was not just another Cressida Bonas: Harry was obviously serious about her. But in the months since then, more evidence has piled up that the actress would make a top-notch 21st-century princess. She has the right humanitarian instincts, for one. As a “global ambassador” for the humanitarian organization World Vision, she has shown a particular interest in issues affecting women and girls. In her Time essay this week, titled “How Periods Affect Potential,” she writes frankly about both the need for period supplies and sanitation in the developing world, and also calls on everyone else to “rise above our puritanical bashfulness when it comes to talking about menstruation.” In a 2015 speech at a U.N. women’s issues conference, she opened by saying she was “proud to be a feminist.” And that feminist streak is nothing new: At age 11, she has said, she wrote to both Hillary Clinton and Gloria Allred to complain about a Proctor & Gamble ad that implied women were the only ones who do dishes. As Tom Sykes writes in the Daily Beast, the company changed the ad as a result.
“I’ve never wanted to be a lady who lunches,” Markle wrote online last fall. “I’ve always wanted to be a woman who works.” If Markle marries Prince Harry, “lunching” will likely be a big part of her job. As modern as some royal relationships may look, they still seem to spend most of their time making appearances at unobjectionable charity events or international meet-and-greets. It’s almost perverse to wish that “work” on anyone as smart and cool as Markle seems to be. But I can’t help it, I’m rooting for her anyway. America could use the win.
