According to a royal expert, the late Prince Philip had a rather pointed nickname for the Duchess of Sussex, and it wasn’t so kind.
The nickname suggested a comparison to Wallis Simpson, the controversial wife of the former King Edward VIII, drawing parallels between Meghan Markle and Wallis, both American and divorced when they married into the royal family.
Prince Philip supposedly referred to Meghan with a name that made reference to this connection.
Wallis Simpson and King Edward VIII
Wallis Simpson, an American divorcée who became the Duchess of Windsor, was one of the most controversial royal figures in recent history after King Edward VIII decided to abdicate the throne in December 1936 (after less than a year as a monarch) to be able to marry her.
At the time, royals were prohibited from entering into a marriage with a divorced person – a rule that did not change until 2002, just three years before the then-Prince Charles married Camilla, per the Royal Observer.
Following King Edward and Wallis Simpson’s marriage, they were not allowed to return home without the permission of his brother, the new King George VI, as there were fears it could potentially cause public unrest, Vogue detailed.
During their years of exile, the Duke and Duchess of Windsor constantly attracted headlines – with one of their most shocking incidents occurring in 1937 when they visited Nazi Germany and were photographed giving the notorious Nazi salute upon meeting Adolf Hitler.
Prince Philip’s brutal nickname
Royal biographer Ingrid Seward shed light on Prince Philip’s perspective during an interview with GB News, suggesting that he thought Meghan and Wallis Simpson had many similarities, leading to the adoption of a discreet nickname for the Duchess of Sussex.
Allegedly Prince Philip, who Seward says was known for his astute judgment of character, couldn’t overlook the resemblances between Meghan and Prince Harry and Edward and Mrs. Simpson.
“I think that Prince Philip was very canny about people and he didn’t always see bad in people, he often tried to see the good in them,” Seward said.
“He just could not get away from the similarities between Meghan and Harry and Edward and Ms Simpson, which his why he used to call her the Duchess of Windsor. Not to her face though, he used to call her DOW,” she added.
In her book ‘My Mother and I‘, Seward delved further into Prince Philip’s reservations about Meghan, describing him as “wary” of the former Suits actress and her potential impact on the royal family.
While Prince Philip saw Meghan as potentially disruptive, Queen Elizabeth II held “high hopes” for her, indicating differing perspectives within the royal family regarding Meghan’s role and influence.
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle left royal life
Since stepping back from their royal duties in 2020 and relocating to California, Meghan and Harry have maintained a relatively low profile within the royal sphere.
While Harry is set to visit the UK for the 10th anniversary of the Invictus Games, with a service to be held at St. Paul’s Cathedral on May 8, according to the Daily Express. Meghan is expected to remain in the US, citing safety concerns and a desire to avoid stirring up controversy.
Despite occasional returns to the UK for significant events like Queen Elizabeth II’s funeral in 2022, Meghan has opted out of attending others, such as King Charles III’s coronation, which Harry attended alone last year.
It’s clear that Meghan is choosing to prioritizing her safety and peace amidst constant scrutiny and public interest in her relationship with the royal family.
What did you think of this story? Be sure to let us know in the comments!
Jim Caviezel Makes a Protest and Says It Would Be “Awful and Ungodly” to Work with Robert De Niro
Actor Jim Caviezel rose to fame after calling renowned actor Robert De Niro a “awful, ungodly man” and refusing to work with him. This unusual attitude in Hollywood has generated conversations about how to balance one’s personal values with one’s commercial ties.
This article explores the specifics of Caviezel’s bold decision, the reasons he declined to collaborate with De Niro, and the broader effects of his open comments in the film industry. Jim Caviezel is well known for his steadfast moral principles and firm Christian convictions. His portrayal of Jesus Christ in Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” is what made him most famous.
On the other hand, the well-known actor Robert De Niro is commended for his versatility in acting and his candid opinions on a broad spectrum of social and political issues. Caviezel’s reluctance to collaborate with De Niro brings to light the conflict between a person’s moral convictions and the teamwork required in filmmaking.
In a recent interview, Caviezel was questioned on potential collaborations with De Niro. With considerable conviction, he declared, “I won’t work with Robert De Niro.” He is a terrible, immoral person.
The strong language in his message immediately caught the interest of fans and the media, generating questions about the specifics of the alleged falling out between the two celebrities. Throughout the meeting, Caviezel stayed silent on specifics, but it’s obvious that his decision was influenced by a deep moral battle.
Given De Niro’s ardent Christian beliefs and commitment to businesses that uphold his moral values, Caviezel appears to believe that there is a distinction between the man on the outside and his past actions.
Due to Caviezel’s ambiguous comment, there were speculations and a rise in public interest in the underlying dynamics. Entertainers often share their opinions on a variety of subjects, such as why they have chosen not to collaborate with a certain individual.
However, opinions on Caviezel’s bold statement have been mixed. Some commend him for sticking to his convictions, considering it an exceptional example of integrity in a field that is occasionally chastised for its lack of morality. Publicly making such statements, according to others, is a bad idea because it can limit one’s prospects for a future career and perpetuate divisions within the profession.
The fact that Caviezel turned down working with De Niro begs further concerns about how actors navigate their personal beliefs in the sometimes contentious, cooperative environment of Hollywood. Although many perspectives and expressions have historically benefited the industry, there is an increasing tendency of artists placing restrictions on their work according to their personal convictions.
This episode serves as an example of how Hollywood is evolving and how people are willing to uphold their principles even at the expense of their professional opportunities. In the entertainment industry, there have been cases where an actor’s public comments have benefited or hindered their career. Some who share Caviezel’s unwavering commitment to his beliefs may find it poignant that he turned down the opportunity to work with De Niro.
Leave a Reply