Историк провел параллели между принцем Гарри и Эдуардом VIII в контексте их отказа от королевских обязанностей

Meghan Markle is often likened to Wallis Simpson, but according to one author, it’s not the American divorcees who deserve scrutiny — it’s the husbands who married them.Hugo Vickers has written a new book, "Behind Closed Doors," which examines the shocking final years of the Duchess of Windsor, who died in 1986 at the age of 89.The royal historian told Fox News Digital that while writing his book, he uncovered striking and troubling parallels between Prince Harry and Edward, Duke of Windsor — the late Queen Elizabeth II’s uncle — who abdicated the throne in 1936 to marry Wallis Simpson.PRINCE HARRY, MEGHAN MARKLE CAUSED ‘UNFORGIVABLE’ STRESS FOR QUEEN ELIZABETH IN FINAL YEARS: AUTHOR"… The one thing in common is that the two husbands both look pretty miserable," Vickers claimed. "If you look at photographs of the Duke of Windsor in old age … I’ve never seen such sad eyes on a man because of what happened. In both cases, they decided not to do the duty which they had been born to undertake.""When I give talks occasionally, usually at schools, I show a picture of the queen, our Queen Elizabeth II, with sparkling eyes at the age of 90, having done her duty and feeling the calm, level gaze, conscious of duty fulfilled, as somebody put it," he said. "Whereas the Duke of Windsor looked pathetic, and he looked very sad. And Prince Harry also looks very, very sad most of the time and rather angry."Harry, 41, has been estranged from his family since he and his wife stepped back as senior royals in 2020. They cited unbearable intrusions by the British press and a lack of support from the palace for their decision to exit.Since moving to California, the couple have aired their grievances in interviews and documentaries. Harry’s 2021 memoir "Spare," which laid bare details about the House of Windsor, worsened tensions.Today, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are still working to define their post-royal identities. Vickers said Meghan, the former American actress, has had a far smoother ride than Harry."Meghan Markle is much more in control of her destiny than Wallis was," said Vickers. "Wallis became a wife and, to be fair to her, she wrote a book of memoirs. She gave one or two interviews, but she was very discreet, to be quite honest. She was very much in the background.""… Meghan Markle is completely different," he continued. "She is using her title and her name to market things. … She’s been selling products and the like. … I just personally don’t think Prince Harry looks happy. My theory is that he is terrified of losing her, which is a very understandable syndrome to get into."British broadcaster and photographer Helena Chard agreed."It’s safe to say that both husbands wanted out of the institution," she explained to Fox News Digital. "Edward VIII didn’t want to be king, and Prince Harry wanted freedom from the royal family. Their ‘get out of jail’ cards were their strong partners. How can we forget Harry and Meghan’s ‘freedom flight’ video shown in their Netflix documentary as they gleefully relinquished their royal duties?"CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT NEWSLETTER"The tides have possibly changed," said Chard. "Harry and Meghan built their exit. However, it doesn’t guarantee safety or peace. Prince Harry continuously worries about Meghan, his family, their safety and media backlash. He seems to be reverting to what he knows and enjoys, his previous royal life."During an unannounced visit to Ukraine on April 24, Harry was asked about being "not a working royal." He replied, "I will always be part of the royal family. … I am here working, doing the things I was born to do."That same month, Harry and Meghan spent four days in Australia, where Harry’s father, King Charles, is the head of state."Looking ahead, Meghan’s trajectory seems firmly anchored in monetizing her proximity to the monarchy," Kinsey Schofield, host of YouTube’s "Kinsey Schofield Unfiltered," told Fox News Digital."I predict a long-term strategy focused on influence, media and commercial ventures, versus any form of royal reconciliation in traditional terms," Schofield said. "For Harry, his long-term positioning still feels less defined. He has leaned heavily into advocacy and legacy projects, but there’s an ongoing tension between his royal identity and his post-royal reality. That ambiguity can be difficult to sustain over time."Majesty magazine’s editor-in-chief Ingrid Seward previously claimed that Prince Philip, Harry’s grandfather, gave Meghan the nickname "DoW," shorthand for Duchess of Windsor, The Telegraph reported. According to the outlet, the name came "from the moment he detected her apparent similarity to Wallis."LIKE WHAT YOU’RE READING? CLICK HERE FOR MORE ENTERTAINMENT NEWSMeghan’s star power also may have worked against her inside the royal family."The most successful members of the royal family are those who support the monarch without competing with him or her," Vickers said. "That’s what they do. People like Sophie, Duchess of Edinburgh. She is a classic example. Catherine, Princess of Wales, likewise, does not compete with her husband, does not compete with the queen, does not compete with the king. Camilla actually also does not compete with the king. She supports him."Vickers noted that while Harry attempts to embrace a laid-back California life years later, Edward didn’t let go of the past. Wallis surrounded him with reminders of the crown he left behind."If Wallis made a mistake, it was to almost become the epitome of a royal duchess," he said. "[Their] house in Paris, which I went to many times, was filled with evidence of royal life. There were lots of coronets all over the place. There were portraits of Queen Mary and lots of pictures of the duchess and footmen in livery and that sort of thing. It was like she created for him a miniature court in exile."While Harry may be privately looking back, Meghan, 44, is more focused on her future."Meghan didn’t fully grasp the institutional reality of marrying into the royal family," said Schofield. "That’s not unusual. The monarchy isn’t just a family. It’s a centuries-old constitutional machine with high expectations, limited personal autonomy and a hierarchy that doesn’t bend easily to modern celebrity culture. Meghan approached it with a more Hollywood-adjacent framework, where personal brand, narrative control and visibility are assets. Inside the monarchy, those same instincts can be liabilities.""Both Meghan and Wallis entered the orbit of the monarchy as outsiders, Americans, divorced," Schofield shared. "Both were perceived as disruptive. And in both cases, the relationship dynamic appears to have reinforced an ‘us versus them’ mentality with their partners.""But there are also key differences that shouldn’t be glossed over," Schofield continued. "Wallis was dealing with a monarchy in a far more rigid, pre-war context, where divorce and public perception carry existential consequences for the crown. Meghan entered a modernized institution that had already weathered divorce, media scrutiny and evolving public expectations. While Wallis triggered a constitutional crisis, Meghan’s situation became more of a reputational and cultural crisis."A source recently told People magazine that the couple is "not reliant on Harry’s father or taxpayer-funded money." Their goal is to remain independent."They pay their own bills and make their own money while continuing to support a lot of causes that might otherwise go unseen. It enables them to do what they love doing," said the insider."They’re trying to live their life, raise their children [Prince Archie, 6, and Princess Lilibet, 4], do meaningful work and earn a living."Chard suggested that, much like his ancestor, Harry is deeply devoted to Meghan and their family. However, it will come as no surprise if he still quietly grieves the life he walked away from."[Wallis and Meghan] both earned independently before marrying into the family, and both landed husbands who completely doted on them," said Chard. "I’d go as far as saying both husbands feared losing their wives and would do absolutely anything not to lose them."