A high-profile British royal gives up his status and title to marry an American woman.

It’s a tale that has abounded in the press for the past few years, ever since the royal wedding of 2018, but Harry and Meghan are not the first to be the centrepieces of such a salacious story.

The year is 1936 and King George V is dead. His son, now Edward VIII, takes the throne, and almost immediately causes an uproar by watching the proclamation of his accession from St James’ Palace, accompanied by his lover, Wallis Simpson. Ordinarily, this would be a routine ceremony following the death of a monarch, were it not for one small detail.

Wallis Simpson was married. To someone else.

Although Wallis had already filed for divorce from her second husband, Ernest Simpson, the king’s intention to marry her threw the country into a constitutional crisis.

The British monarch is the head of the Church of England, and at the time, the Church of England would not perform the marriage of someone with a living divorced partner, of which Wallis had two. Further complicating the matter was the grounds that Wallis filed for divorce from her first husband, Earl Spencer, which had been cited as ‘mutual incompatibility’. The Church only recognised adultery as a valid ground for divorce, so there was the possibility that Wallis’ second marriage, as well as her intended marriage with Edward, could be considered bigamous.

After news of the King’s relationship with Wallis became public knowledge in late 1939, Wallis retreated to France in order to outrun the press, who spent three months besieging her.

It became clear, after negotiations with Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin, that there was no way that Edward could marry Wallis and remain king. Therefore, in December of 1939, Edward signed the Instrument of Abdication, and was succeeded by his brother, George.

Wallis and Edward were married in France in June 1937. The royal family were not in attendance, and Wallis did not receive a royal title.

While Harry and Meghan’s story bears striking similarity to the story of Edward and Wallis, there are key differences.

The most significant being that Harry was not king and was not in line to take the throne. This instantly lowers the stakes, as him renouncing his royal status does not cause a constitutional crisis.

A second difference is the fact that the marriage itself was not a catalyst for Harry’s renouncement of his royal status, but instead the restrictive lifestyle and oppressive, abusive media coverage that is attached to the royal family.

However, reactions from the public towards the women involved bear similarities.

Both Wallis and Meghan have largely been blamed for pulling their husbands away from the royal family, as if Edward and Harry were hapless creatures being pulled around by their domineering wives.

The reality is that the restrictions of royal life have proved not to endear the men to the institution. For Harry and Edward, when their personal lives proved to be incompatible with their royal lives, the choice was obvious.

Ultimately, these men were adults with full capability to make their own decisions, and the media lampooning of Meghan and Wallis are further unfortunate examples of the misogynistic tendency to blame women for all the wrongs of the world. Eve, Pandora, Helen of Troy. Wallis and Meghan.

That is not to say that Wallis and Meghan are both equally unfairly vilified. Wallis was criticised both contemporaneously and historically for being a Nazi sympathiser – after Edward and Wallis’ visit to Germany in 1937, Hitler commented of Wallis that “she would have made a good queen”. In comparison, Meghan’s only crimes seem to be allegedly being rude and attention seeking, claims that if true, do not seem incongruous with her acting career.

In reflection, it seems that history is repeating itself, and that the relaxations of the royal institution since the 1930s have proved to be insufficient to maintain a modern lifestyle. When looking at the current scandal through the lens of a personal lifestyle, it seems reasonable that Harry may want to leave behind an institution that mistreats his wife and prevents him from living a wholly happy personal life, especially since so many of the issues that plague him also plagued his mother. But he is not the first to do so, and, given that the monarchy remains in place for another ninety years, he may very well not be the last.