Entrevista
Leslie Carroll
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's union "sounds like an improbable plot for a Harlequin romance," the American Princess author jokes in a conversation with Audible. But as Carroll began her research in earnest, "what I found out was that they had more in common than I ever would have expected."
Por: Amanda Michelle Steiner
To fully grasp the unprecedented nature of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's upcoming nuptials, you need to to look back: not just at their individual histories — she, an accomplished, California-born actress who also happens to be biracial and a divorcée, and he an actual, real-life prince, sixth in line to the throne — but at the tangled, complicated history of the British Royal Family and all of the rigorous traditions that have upheld it.
In American Princess: The Love Story of Meghan Markle and Prince Harry, author Leslie Carroll does just that. Unlike recent royal biographies that focus on the separate halves of the couple, American Princess — narrated wonderfully by Andi Arndt — details their union by examining the threads that led up to it, weaving together a narrative structure that's as informative as it is pleasurable to digest for any royal superfan.
As the author of several fiction and nonfiction titles with royals at the forefront — including Notorious Royal Marriages and Royal Affairs — Carroll is well-versed in the subject. And though she jokes that Harry and Meghan's relationship "sounds like an improbable plot for a Harlequin romance," as she began her research in earnest, she discovered that "they had more in common than [she] ever would have expected." Below, learn more about why Harry and Meghan's union is so surprising — and how their love bucks hundreds of years of tradition.
AUDIBLE: The nature of Harry and Meghan's relationship is unprecedented for a number of reasons, but what do you think is the most surprising aspect not just of their union, but rather of the queen's acceptance of it?
LESLIE CARROLL: The queen was more accepting than most people believed because the monarchy does have a long history of racial tension — obviously — having once presided over 25 percent of the world. They do have this long history of colonialism, and so what the British tabloids in particular found so shocking is the fact that Meghan is biracial. People who do know Her Majesty have said that she's a whole lot more tolerant and worldly and cosmopolitan than some of her subjects seem to think she is.
There were certainly royals who married divorced women — Charles married Camilla, but the church had to change its views on accepting divorce before he could. When Edward VIII wanted to marry Wallis Simpson, a twice-divorced American socialite, he had to abdicate the throne. And certainly there have been royal men who have had affairs with actresses, and none of those women would have been accepted as royal brides — they were barely accepted as royal mistresses. But that's nothing compared to how much people are clutching their pearls over the fact that Meghan is biracial.
Can you think of something surprising that you found out about Harry and Meghan during your research that really stood out to you?
I really wanted to tell the love story of Meghan and Harry. And what I discovered, which becomes clear as you read the alternating chapters, is that the two of them have a whole lot more in common with each other than one would assume from the surface story of a blurb description of, "Grandson of Queen of England gets engaged to California girl whose mother is descended from slaves." I mean, it sounds like an improbable plot for a Harlequin romance. It sounds like a Cinderella story, and what surprised me pleasantly is that they have a lot in common. They were both children of divorce, they both went to progressive, expensive private schools, and they both have mothers who raised them to be kind and compassionate — mothers who took them to homeless shelters, to soup kitchens, and to underdeveloped countries when they were little kids. It showed that just because someone might not have as much as you do — whether you're a Valley Girl or whether you grew up in Kensington Palace — they aren't less than you are.
Call me a cynic, but amid the whole fairytale romance aspect of their relationship, there's something that felt worrying about a woman who was previously so in the spotlight withdraw to the extent that Meghan really has in recent months. What are your thoughts about that, and do you think Meghan will be able to retain her independence following the hush-hush secrecy of the wedding?
It's the one thing I have been wondering about. Americans tend to be very open — for years, Meghan had her blog, The Tig, where she shared whatever was on her mind — and especially being from California, where there's even more of an open vibe about who you are. But she also has that red carpet experience — she knows how to be poised and polished, and with her humanitarian work — that's her other profession — she is accustomed to being a public figure. Although, certainly, when you're on a TV show for seven years that films in Toronto, that is nothing compared to the 24/7 fish bowl that is being a member of the royal family.
I started to wonder then how much she might change the royal family as opposed to the royal family changing her — she's no 19-year-old like Kate was when she met William in college, or like Diana was, who was completely molded into oblivion by the royal family until she came into her own after her divorce from Charles. And Meghan being 36 now — the same age Diana was when she died — and being a cosmopolitan woman of the world who's had two professions, who is so confident in her own skin, who, even when other women of colour have said, "Hey, you're black," she'll say, "I am a proud mixed-race woman." She's still not wearing pantyhose. She's still wearing a messy bun. And yes, those are little, tiny things, but in a world like the monarchy that moves at a glacial pace … she's the first biracial woman to marry into the monarchy in a thousand years — the first actress, the first divorced woman, and only the second college graduate after Kate. This is how slowly things change. But she's still clearly confident in who she is as a person. She's an advocate for the #MeToo and Time's Up movements, even though the royal family is not supposed to express personal political opinions. And they may try to curtail her on this but I have a funny feeling that she's going to find ways to express herself. People already know who she is.
And Harry never had too many problems expressing himself growing up …
Exactly. And people had asked her, "Oh is Harry okay with this?" and she said "[Harry's] a feminist, too." And the way he looks at her. He so clearly adores her. And in interviews and other public situations where it's clear that she is more comfortable in the spotlight or in front of the cameras than he is, he looks to her for guidance.
Given the circumstances surrounding Prince Charles and Princess Diana's wedding, I think it's fair to say that 35 years ago a marriage between Harry and Meghan would not have been permitted. Do you agree?
Absolutely. That's part of American Princess. It sets Harry and Meghan's whole romance in the first place and their wedding in the context of other royal romances and affairs and weddings and marriages; theirs could not have taken place, even in Harry's father's day and certainly not hundreds of years ago.
Charles was not allowed to marry Camilla because she wasn't a virgin and she wasn't from a posh enough family, and now here's Harry marrying Meghan who is not only a commoner — as Kate was when William married her — but is an American and is divorced. Princess Margaret was not allowed to marry a man that had been divorced because the queen has to give her permission to any royal asking to be married — that's a law that goes back to 1772, from the time of King George III, because his sons were having inadvisable affairs with actresses. And now, here's Harry asking his grandmother's permission to marry an actress!
What would you say is the impetus behind this evolution in attitude over such a short period of time, given the duration of the monarchy? And could the monarchy even sustain itself in this day and age without these changes in what had typically been iron-clad protocol?
Well, the queen is 92 years old and the world has marched on exponentially since the arrival of the internet; it has connected us all. We are less insular than we used to be and so the monarchy is less insular than it used to be.
But the queen also just wants Harry to be happy. Harry is no longer close to the throne anymore; he's no longer the spare. Since William and Kate have had three kids, Harry has been bumped down to sixth in line for the throne. So, his path in life as a royal is really going to be as a global ambassador. And he and Meghan as a couple look like the world looks like.
Maybe if Harry were William and William were Harry doing this several years ago, it might not have been permissible. I don't know. But with Harry, it's a different story because he's not going to be king. In that respect it matters a lot less. And I also think a lot of people are waiting for Harry to have his happily-ever-after because he lost his mother when he was 12. And everybody wanted William to have his, too. We've been watching these boys ever since Diana's funeral and hoping that they would eventually find someone who would love them and make them happy. And I think that Harry has finally found this grown-up who is his soul mate who is willing to share the burden of being a royal with him. His other long-time girlfriends, Chelsy Davy and Cressida Bonas, weren't up for it.
Lastly, as an audiobook narrator yourself, what did you think of Andi's performance? And what do you enjoy about the process?
I'm really happy for Andi. I was given a bunch of choices and I chose Andi because she has narrated other nonfiction — she was the best. And I love narrating audiobooks — it's probably my favorite thing to do, because it marries both my professions. I'm happiest when I'm in the booth.
Interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.
In American Princess: The Love Story of Meghan Markle and Prince Harry, author Leslie Carroll does just that. Unlike recent royal biographies that focus on the separate halves of the couple, American Princess — narrated wonderfully by Andi Arndt — details their union by examining the threads that led up to it, weaving together a narrative structure that's as informative as it is pleasurable to digest for any royal superfan.
As the author of several fiction and nonfiction titles with royals at the forefront — including Notorious Royal Marriages and Royal Affairs — Carroll is well-versed in the subject. And though she jokes that Harry and Meghan's relationship "sounds like an improbable plot for a Harlequin romance," as she began her research in earnest, she discovered that "they had more in common than [she] ever would have expected." Below, learn more about why Harry and Meghan's union is so surprising — and how their love bucks hundreds of years of tradition.
AUDIBLE: The nature of Harry and Meghan's relationship is unprecedented for a number of reasons, but what do you think is the most surprising aspect not just of their union, but rather of the queen's acceptance of it?
LESLIE CARROLL: The queen was more accepting than most people believed because the monarchy does have a long history of racial tension — obviously — having once presided over 25 percent of the world. They do have this long history of colonialism, and so what the British tabloids in particular found so shocking is the fact that Meghan is biracial. People who do know Her Majesty have said that she's a whole lot more tolerant and worldly and cosmopolitan than some of her subjects seem to think she is.
There were certainly royals who married divorced women — Charles married Camilla, but the church had to change its views on accepting divorce before he could. When Edward VIII wanted to marry Wallis Simpson, a twice-divorced American socialite, he had to abdicate the throne. And certainly there have been royal men who have had affairs with actresses, and none of those women would have been accepted as royal brides — they were barely accepted as royal mistresses. But that's nothing compared to how much people are clutching their pearls over the fact that Meghan is biracial.
Can you think of something surprising that you found out about Harry and Meghan during your research that really stood out to you?
I really wanted to tell the love story of Meghan and Harry. And what I discovered, which becomes clear as you read the alternating chapters, is that the two of them have a whole lot more in common with each other than one would assume from the surface story of a blurb description of, "Grandson of Queen of England gets engaged to California girl whose mother is descended from slaves." I mean, it sounds like an improbable plot for a Harlequin romance. It sounds like a Cinderella story, and what surprised me pleasantly is that they have a lot in common. They were both children of divorce, they both went to progressive, expensive private schools, and they both have mothers who raised them to be kind and compassionate — mothers who took them to homeless shelters, to soup kitchens, and to underdeveloped countries when they were little kids. It showed that just because someone might not have as much as you do — whether you're a Valley Girl or whether you grew up in Kensington Palace — they aren't less than you are.
Call me a cynic, but amid the whole fairytale romance aspect of their relationship, there's something that felt worrying about a woman who was previously so in the spotlight withdraw to the extent that Meghan really has in recent months. What are your thoughts about that, and do you think Meghan will be able to retain her independence following the hush-hush secrecy of the wedding?
It's the one thing I have been wondering about. Americans tend to be very open — for years, Meghan had her blog, The Tig, where she shared whatever was on her mind — and especially being from California, where there's even more of an open vibe about who you are. But she also has that red carpet experience — she knows how to be poised and polished, and with her humanitarian work — that's her other profession — she is accustomed to being a public figure. Although, certainly, when you're on a TV show for seven years that films in Toronto, that is nothing compared to the 24/7 fish bowl that is being a member of the royal family.
I started to wonder then how much she might change the royal family as opposed to the royal family changing her — she's no 19-year-old like Kate was when she met William in college, or like Diana was, who was completely molded into oblivion by the royal family until she came into her own after her divorce from Charles. And Meghan being 36 now — the same age Diana was when she died — and being a cosmopolitan woman of the world who's had two professions, who is so confident in her own skin, who, even when other women of colour have said, "Hey, you're black," she'll say, "I am a proud mixed-race woman." She's still not wearing pantyhose. She's still wearing a messy bun. And yes, those are little, tiny things, but in a world like the monarchy that moves at a glacial pace … she's the first biracial woman to marry into the monarchy in a thousand years — the first actress, the first divorced woman, and only the second college graduate after Kate. This is how slowly things change. But she's still clearly confident in who she is as a person. She's an advocate for the #MeToo and Time's Up movements, even though the royal family is not supposed to express personal political opinions. And they may try to curtail her on this but I have a funny feeling that she's going to find ways to express herself. People already know who she is.
And Harry never had too many problems expressing himself growing up …
Exactly. And people had asked her, "Oh is Harry okay with this?" and she said "[Harry's] a feminist, too." And the way he looks at her. He so clearly adores her. And in interviews and other public situations where it's clear that she is more comfortable in the spotlight or in front of the cameras than he is, he looks to her for guidance.
Given the circumstances surrounding Prince Charles and Princess Diana's wedding, I think it's fair to say that 35 years ago a marriage between Harry and Meghan would not have been permitted. Do you agree?
Absolutely. That's part of American Princess. It sets Harry and Meghan's whole romance in the first place and their wedding in the context of other royal romances and affairs and weddings and marriages; theirs could not have taken place, even in Harry's father's day and certainly not hundreds of years ago.
Charles was not allowed to marry Camilla because she wasn't a virgin and she wasn't from a posh enough family, and now here's Harry marrying Meghan who is not only a commoner — as Kate was when William married her — but is an American and is divorced. Princess Margaret was not allowed to marry a man that had been divorced because the queen has to give her permission to any royal asking to be married — that's a law that goes back to 1772, from the time of King George III, because his sons were having inadvisable affairs with actresses. And now, here's Harry asking his grandmother's permission to marry an actress!
What would you say is the impetus behind this evolution in attitude over such a short period of time, given the duration of the monarchy? And could the monarchy even sustain itself in this day and age without these changes in what had typically been iron-clad protocol?
Well, the queen is 92 years old and the world has marched on exponentially since the arrival of the internet; it has connected us all. We are less insular than we used to be and so the monarchy is less insular than it used to be.
But the queen also just wants Harry to be happy. Harry is no longer close to the throne anymore; he's no longer the spare. Since William and Kate have had three kids, Harry has been bumped down to sixth in line for the throne. So, his path in life as a royal is really going to be as a global ambassador. And he and Meghan as a couple look like the world looks like.
Maybe if Harry were William and William were Harry doing this several years ago, it might not have been permissible. I don't know. But with Harry, it's a different story because he's not going to be king. In that respect it matters a lot less. And I also think a lot of people are waiting for Harry to have his happily-ever-after because he lost his mother when he was 12. And everybody wanted William to have his, too. We've been watching these boys ever since Diana's funeral and hoping that they would eventually find someone who would love them and make them happy. And I think that Harry has finally found this grown-up who is his soul mate who is willing to share the burden of being a royal with him. His other long-time girlfriends, Chelsy Davy and Cressida Bonas, weren't up for it.
Lastly, as an audiobook narrator yourself, what did you think of Andi's performance? And what do you enjoy about the process?
I'm really happy for Andi. I was given a bunch of choices and I chose Andi because she has narrated other nonfiction — she was the best. And I love narrating audiobooks — it's probably my favorite thing to do, because it marries both my professions. I'm happiest when I'm in the booth.
Interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.
adbl_web_global_use_to_activate_webcro805_stickypopup