I have spent a good hour thinking about how to answer Faerywings question. I have done some research to give you a little perspective on the topic. I hope it doesn't come across like a lecture. lol
Over the last 100 years many changes have happened within the Royal Family as it tries to keep aligned with current times and in my opinion that is a good thing. While it is hard to adjust and in some case necessary, the monarchy should, and has on many occasions, changed to stay relevant in the modern age. Change is not always ‘bad’… just different and there will always be those foror against what it is.
Here are some things that have changed in the last 100 years (I am basing my information an article on Global news written and researched by Olivia Bowden)
Firstly, a bit of background, the line of succession changed when in 1936 King Edward Vlll abdicated to marry Wallace Simpson, a commoner and American - twice divorced. Had he stayed on as King, the throne would pass to any male children he may have had. Instead, the line of succession switched to that of his brother, Albert who became King George Vl and subsequently on to his daughter Princess Elizabeth now Queen Elizabeth ll. (King George had no male heirs)If it were not for that major change there would be a completely different family in line for the throne.
Changes due to political or social trend of the times:
1. 1958 - the presenting of debutantes to the Queen stopped as it thought as ‘out of touch’
2. up to WWl -marriage rules indicated royalty must marry royalty, meaning princes and princesses, – today royals now have the ability to marry outside of the prince and princess pool and choose from a variety of social backgrounds. Prince Charles, Prince William and Prince Harry married outside of strict royal circles. None of them married a born princess.
3. The Church of England relaxed the rules and allowed previously married individuals to marry into the royal family. Both Prince Charles and Prince Harry married a divorcee.
4. Permission from the Queen to marry now is only need by the first 6 in line to the throne.
5. Education used to be accomplished by tutors at ‘home’ and attending school was promoted by Prince Phillip and the children of the Cambridge’s will follow suit.
6. Succession has become gender-neutral meaning that the throne is passed to males and females in birth order, not just males.
7. The accessibility of royals has increased and continued more frequently in the 1960’s and1970’s where the monarch actually walked about and talked to people in the crowd. Before that, royals would only wave as they passed by. The intention of the walkabout was to make the royals more approachable and lessen the idea of class distinction as well as seeing the royals as promoting a more democratic society and I believe it has succeeded.
Each one of these changes had a definite impact on how the public perceives royalty. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are simply making a change in their lives as royals. The Duke will never be on the throne. Why should he be restricted in how he wishes to proceed with his new life as husband and father? He has chosen to forego any money to which he previously was entitled as is allowed by current law surrounding trusts and so forth. He is also paying back any debts for the renovations of Frogmore Cottage where he and the Duchess will live while in England.
Prince Charles has stated that when he takes over the throne he plans to slim down the royal family to the major players and reduce the number of the family that receives money from the public purse. The Duke has simply beaten him to it by stepping down.
As for the Duchess of Sussex, there is far too much hate mongering, too much sensationalism and too much nastiness just to sell papers. It is unfortunate that many people read and believe the nonsense written. For me, I always consider the validity of the information source. What does that source gain by publicizing their thoughts and opinions?
