Much ado has been made about Meghan Markle’s dissimilarity from the rest of the British Royal Family.
The “rebel royal” often gets accused of “corrupting” Prince Harry with her American ways. She’s been called everything from the “duchess of difficult” to a gold-digger (even though she clearly picked the wrong gold mine with “The Firm”). And she’s endured countless attacks from everyone ranging from the Fleet Street press to members of her own family.
But there’s one person who would have loved Markle, had she been alive to meet her: Diana, Princess of Wales.
Many of Diana’s close friends admit that Meghan, not Kate, would have been her favorite daughter-in-law.
Diana’s former butler, and close friend, Paul Burrell said that Markle and the former Lady Spencer were very much alike.
Burrell said that Markle’s similarities to the “People’s Princess” attracted Prince Harry.
Harry went for and married Meghan because she’s like Diana. Both women who would always stand up for what they believe in and wouldn’t be pushovers.
Modern royal watchers forget that during her lifetime, Diana was far more rebellious than Meghan Markle ever was.
She was informal and progressive and encouraged her children to be the same. What’s more, Diana exposed her children to world affairs. And she was publicly loving and affectionate, flouting royal tradition.
That’s why Princes William and Harry engage in “normal” activities to this day. And rather than having a stuffy, out-of-touch persona, both princes are seen as part and parcel of the people they serve.
Is it any wonder that Prince Harry saw these same traits in Meghan Markle? And why is it seen as so subversive for Harry to desire a strong, independent woman?
Like any set of in-laws, Diana and Meghan Markle wouldn’t have been perfect. There would have been times that they’d have butted heads. But that’s typical of a relationship between two fierce women.
Burrell believes that Markle and Diana had one other difference, as well.
I think the main difference between them is that Meghan has a game plan, whereas Diana was young and naïve. Diana did the book with Andrew Morton and courted the press over the years because she didn’t have a voice. And her strong-mindedness meant she cared and she felt the people of the country had a right to know what had gone on behind closed doors.
This difference, though, is not because Meghan Markle is some conniving publicity hound. This difference is because Meghan Markle grew up in an age of social media, smartphones, and seeing the template set by the People’s Princess.
And unlike Kate Middleton — who seems content with reverting to a “traditional” role in “The Firm” — Markle has her own life apart from her husband. It’s highly unlikely that Diana would have appreciated a daughter-in-law like Middleton, who seems content with toeing the line she fought so valiantly against.
There’s one more way that Diana and Markle are exactly alike, too, that is rarely discussed.
Diana didn’t marry Charles to “become a princess.” As the Earl of Spencer notoriously quipped at Diana’s funeral, the Spencers are “true” British royalty. While the Windsors are descendants of a Germanic line, the Spencers are true British blood. Winston Churchill is a member of the Spencer royal line.
Diana had to put up with an unprecedented amount of negative press. Detractors slammed her for “tainting” the royal line. And she was accused of being the worst thing to happen to the British Royal Family.
Hey, Meghan Markle — you’re in good company.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of CCN.com.