Life outside the goldfish bowl

Subject: Life outside the goldfish bowl 

What we do for love. Looking at the stunned look on Prince Harry's face in this mornings press one can see someone asking 'has this happened to me'. A few months ago he was the pin up boy of the Royals the slightly roguish looking supporter of men disabled serving our country in our armed forces. An airman himself he had shown the 'common touch' in devoting time for a cause no one could quibble with. He was the face of the Invictus Games and a strong advocate that we should do more to protect our soldiers when they return from the battle field. He contrasted with William in temperament, William the carefully groomed heir to the throne had married the archetypal princess, tall and willowy who's poise and grace in front of the camera, is legend, much like the Queen when young. 

It's hard to equate Megan with Kate, perhaps the temperament, itself a part of upbringing and the difference between ourselves and our cousins the Americans. The subtle versus the brash, the power instigated more in what isn't said versus the equality bandwagon.
What ever the reason, in a much earlier blog I drew parallels with Mrs Simpsons marriage to King Edward the VIII which forced his abdication, not  having the noblesse oblige aspect to their psychological make up women in America demand a voice around the table and are far less inclined to withdraw to the drawing room when the cigars come out. Megan has had her cross to bear in the tempestuous relationship with her father and at the time of the engagement her sister was very critical of her. She is what we often admire in our daughters, a woman who has a vision of her worth and will move heaven and earth to get to where she wants to be. In a daughter or a son we love to see a groundbreaker, a successful person, not exclusively in so far as making money is concerned but in their willingness to lay down their own ground rules and a commitment to follow it.
Megan the actress or Megan the beautiful young woman are combination which is such a powerful aphrodisiac (Cleopatra comes to mind) for a young man brought up in a hot-house of the prerogative and deferential obsequious. Is it any wonder he was swept off his feet by this strong minded woman, just as Mrs Simpson did to the king in the 1930s.
You can't blame her for being attractive to Harry and 'mother nature' being the arbiter in such matters, his compulsiveness, much like his mother Diana, produced the drama which is the result of the press freedom to tell a story's built on innuendo and tittle tattle which, it appears the couple don't want to plague them as it plagued his mother Diana.
Does the fault lie in the press and their undoubted interference with mean handed stories or is it the Palace and it's clearly out of date view of itself. Should the Palace not be more like the Dutch Royal Family, more in touch with its citizens, less an edifice waiting to be knocked off its perch.
Harry stripped of his title and all that went with it must now look into the future with some trepidation, not having been groomed for anything but being a Royal he is ill equipped to do a job but I suppose the Rolodex will come in useful.
His love is genuine and will see him through but he must now be reflecting on what life is like outside the goldfish bowl.