Touching Queen Elizabeth has long been considered one of the greatest taboos surrounding the British monarch, one of the unwritten rules about how people are expected to behave around the royal family.

When American actress Meghan Markle walks down the aisle of St George's Chapel at Windsor Castle to marry the queen's grandson Prince Harry on May 19, she will have to have mastered those protocols.

Lucy Hume, the associate director at Debrett's, a professional coaching company founded in 1769 and an authority on modern British etiquette, explains how members of the public should act if they happen to meet a member of Britain's royal family.

WHAT SHOULD I DO IF I MEET A MEMBER OF THE ROYAL FAMILY?

"One of the key things to bear in mind is how to greet a member of the royal family when you meet them for the first time, and it's customary in a formal situation for women to curtsy - a brief bob is sufficient - and for men to bow from the neck."

WHAT SHOULD I DO IF I MEET A ROYAL AT A LESS FORMAL EVENT?

"Sometimes you might encounter a member of the royal family at a reception or a less formal occasion, in which case it might be appropriate to shake their hand, but it's best to wait for them to offer their hand first before you reach out yours."

WHAT DO I CALL THE ROYALS WHEN I MEET THEM?

"If you are introduced to the queen, you address her as 'Your Majesty'. Any other members of the royal family are addressed as 'Your Royal Highness' and for women you thereafter would call them 'Ma'am' and, for men, you would call them 'Sir'."

CAN I ASK A ROYAL FOR A SELFIE?

"It's not usually appropriate to do so. So if you do want to take a photograph, ask their permission first, possibly get somebody else to take a photograph but it's important to respect that person's personal space."

IS IT OKAY FOR ME TO PUT MY ARM AROUND A ROYAL?

"Best not to initiate personal physical contact with a member of the royal family. Again, it may be that they offered to give you a hug or to put their arm around you, but usually wait and see what's expected or what's appropriate for the event."

WHAT HAPPENS IF I GET SOMETHING WRONG?

"You're not going to be in trouble. There are no official legal rules in place. Apologise if you feel you may have caused offence, but try not to panic, and stay calm."

WILL THE ROYALS BE KIND TO ME IF I MESS UP?

"It would seem from what we've seen of members of the royal family in public that they are very accustomed to a variety of different situations. They meet people from different backgrounds all the time and they're very accustomed to putting people at ease it's unlikely you would cause offence."

Touching Queen Elizabeth has long been considered one of the greatest taboos surrounding the British monarch.

Touching Queen Elizabeth has long been considered one of the greatest taboos surrounding the British monarch, one of the unwritten rules about how people are expected to behave around the royal family. When American actress Meghan Markle walks down the aisle of St George's Chapel at Windsor Castle to marry the queen's grandson Prince Harry on May 19, she will have to have mastered those protocols. Lucy Hume, the associate director at Debrett's, a professional coaching company founded in 1769 and an authority on modern British etiquette, explains how members of the public should act if they happen to meet a member of Britain's royal family. WHAT SHOULD I DO IF I MEET A MEMBER OF THE ROYAL FAMILY? "One of the key things to bear in mind is how to greet a member of the royal family when you meet them for the first time, and it's customary in a formal situation for women to curtsy - a brief bob is sufficient - and for men to bow from the neck." WHAT SHOULD I DO IF I MEET A ROYAL AT A LESS FORMAL EVENT? "Sometimes you might encounter a member of the royal family at a reception or a less formal occasion, in which case it might be appropriate to shake their hand, but it's best to wait for them to offer their hand first before you reach out yours." WHAT DO I CALL THE ROYALS WHEN I MEET THEM? "If you are introduced to the queen, you address her as 'Your Majesty'. Any other members of the royal family are addressed as 'Your Royal Highness' and for women you thereafter would call them 'Ma'am' and, for men, you would call them 'Sir'." CAN I ASK A ROYAL FOR A SELFIE? "It's not usually appropriate to do so. So if you do want to take a photograph, ask their permission first, possibly get somebody else to take a photograph but it's important to respect that person's personal space." IS IT OKAY FOR ME TO PUT MY ARM AROUND A ROYAL? "Best not to initiate personal physical contact with a member of the royal family. Again, it may be that they offered to give you a hug or to put their arm around you, but usually wait and see what's expected or what's appropriate for the event." WHAT HAPPENS IF I GET SOMETHING WRONG? "You're not going to be in trouble. There are no official legal rules in place. Apologise if you feel you may have caused offence, but try not to panic, and stay calm." WILL THE ROYALS BE KIND TO ME IF I MESS UP? "It would seem from what we've seen of members of the royal family in public that they are very accustomed to a variety of different situations. They meet people from different backgrounds all the time and they're very accustomed to putting people at ease it's unlikely you would cause offence."

Meghan Markle's post-wedding challenge: Master British royal protocol

Sotheby’s will offer the historic Farnese Blue diamond at its Geneva sale in May, the first time it has been on the market.&nbsp;

The pear-shaped, 6.16-carat, fancy dark grey-blue stone has passed through the hands of the royals from four European dynasties, over the last 300 years. It was originally given to Queen Elisabeth Farnese of Spain as a wedding gift following her marriage to King Philip V in 1714.
<img alt="‘The Farnese Blue’ diamond" data-align="center" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="44916e4a-aa52-4f77-8dc8-0aad68ddf353" src="/sites/default/files/inline-images/pastedImage%20%281%29.png" />
The diamond will go under the hammer at the Magnificent Jewels and Noble Jewels auction on May 15 with an estimated price of $3.7 million to $5.3 million.&nbsp;

Originating in the Golconda mines of India, it has traveled from Spain to France, Italy and Austria over the last three centuries.&nbsp;

It would be passed down through more than seven generations and, as Elisabeth's descendants married into other European families.

Sotheby's will be offering the gem at its Magnificent Jewels and Noble Jewels sale taking place in Geneva on May 15, 2018. The stone's value is calculated between $3,690,000 and $5,270,000.

The Farnese Blue will appear at Sotheby’s in Hong Kong, London, New York, Singapore and Taipei, before coming to Geneva for display prior to the sale.
<img alt="‘The Farnese Blue’ diamond" data-align="center" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="06ac950a-2cac-4cdc-a2a2-57b172743b79" src="/sites/default/files/inline-images/pastedImage.png" />
&nbsp;

The pear-shaped, 6.16-carat, fancy dark grey-blue stone has passed through the hands of the royals from four European dynasties, over the last 300 years

Sotheby’s will offer the historic Farnese Blue diamond at its Geneva sale in May, the first time it has been on the market. The pear-shaped, 6.16-carat, fancy dark grey-blue stone has passed through the hands of the royals from four European dynasties, over the last 300 years. It was originally given to Queen Elisabeth Farnese of Spain as a wedding gift following her marriage to King Philip V in 1714. The diamond will go under the hammer at the Magnificent Jewels and Noble Jewels auction on May 15 with an estimated price of $3.7 million to $5.3 million. Originating in the Golconda mines of India, it has traveled from Spain to France, Italy and Austria over the last three centuries. It would be passed down through more than seven generations and, as Elisabeth's descendants married into other European families. Sotheby's will be offering the gem at its Magnificent Jewels and Noble Jewels sale taking place in Geneva on May 15, 2018. The stone's value is calculated between $3,690,000 and $5,270,000. The Farnese Blue will appear at Sotheby’s in Hong Kong, London, New York, Singapore and Taipei, before coming to Geneva for display prior to the sale.

Historic ‘The Farnese Blue’ diamond to be auctioned at Sotheby’s sale after 300 years

Ever since Prince Harry announced his<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/prince-harry-announces-his-engagement-to-actress-meghan-markle-25254" target="_blank"> engagement</a> and soon-to-happen <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/prince-harry-and-meghan-markles-wedding-date-has-been-officially-announced-26857" target="_blank">wedding </a>with American actress <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/meet-meghan-markle-the-mix-race-actress-set-to-marry-britains-prince-harry-25266" target="_blank">Meghan Markle</a>, paparazzi have been following the royal couple, trying to find out new developments in their lives.&nbsp;

In the most recent update, Meghan Markle is expected to deliver her own speech at her royal wedding with Prince Harry. It would be a break from centuries-old royal tradition.&nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/entertainment-meghan-markles-low-key-hen-party-30421">Meghan Markle&#39;s low key hen party</a>

It is understood that the actress will be speaking during their&nbsp;reception at Windsor Castle following the wedding ceremony on May 19. The function is expected to host around 800 guests.&nbsp;

73-year-old Thomas, Meghan Markle&#39;s father will be walking the former actress down the aisle&nbsp;but is less likely to make a speech at the reception.

Also Watch:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/videos/london-zoo-names-new-arrival-after-prince-harrys-fiance-meghan-markle-7858" target="_blank">London Zoo names new arrival after Prince Harry&#39;s fiance Meghan Markle</a>

Markle is expected to be made a Duchess on the day.&nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/meghan-markle-deletes-all-social-media-accounts-ahead-of-marriage-to-prince-harry-29177">Meghan Markle deletes all social media accounts ahead of marriage to Prince Harry</a>

A popular London-based newspaper report says&nbsp;that she might even make a couple of jokes, and is said to have&nbsp;Prince Harry&rsquo;s full support.&nbsp;

Prince Harry is yet to announce his best man and his brother Prince William is widely tipped to be among his top choices.

&nbsp;

As per tradition, her 73-year-old father will walk her down the aisle

Ever since Prince Harry announced his engagement and soon-to-happen wedding with American actress Meghan Markle, paparazzi have been following the royal couple, trying to find out new developments in their lives. In the most recent update, Meghan Markle is expected to deliver her own speech at her royal wedding with Prince Harry. It would be a break from centuries-old royal tradition. Also Read: Meghan Markle's low key hen party It is understood that the actress will be speaking during their reception at Windsor Castle following the wedding ceremony on May 19. The function is expected to host around 800 guests. 73-year-old Thomas, Meghan Markle's father will be walking the former actress down the aisle but is less likely to make a speech at the reception. Also Watch: London Zoo names new arrival after Prince Harry's fiance Meghan Markle Markle is expected to be made a Duchess on the day. Also Read: Meghan Markle deletes all social media accounts ahead of marriage to Prince Harry A popular London-based newspaper report says that she might even make a couple of jokes, and is said to have Prince Harry’s full support. Prince Harry is yet to announce his best man and his brother Prince William is widely tipped to be among his top choices.

Meghan Markle to break centuries-old royal tradition by making her own speech

Meghan Markle has been making many changes as she prepares to enter the royal family.&nbsp;

The Hollywood actress recently deleted all her social media accounts - Twitter, Instagram and Facebook - the&nbsp;Kensington Palace confirmed.&nbsp;

&ldquo;Ms. Markle is grateful to everyone who has followed her social media accounts over the years, however as she has not used them for some time, she has taken the decision to close them,&rdquo; Kensington Palace told media.&nbsp;

The professionally managed Kensington Palace pages document the appearances and news of both her fianc&eacute; and soon-to-be in-laws, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.

Markle&rsquo;s Twitter page (@meghanmarkle), where she had about 475,000 followers and had posted nearly 5,000 tweets, is now gone.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false"><img alt="" draggable="false" src="http://s.wionews.com/photos/0109meghanmarkletwitter-20180111031241.png" />
<div class="media-description">
Meghan Markle&#39;s Twitter (Twitter)
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="javascript:void(0)" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

Markle&rsquo;s Instagram page (@meghanmarkle), where she had about 3 million followers and more than 2,000 posts has also been deleted.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false"><img alt="" draggable="false" src="http://s.wionews.com/photos/0109meghanmarkleinstagram-20180111031133.png" />
<div class="media-description">
Meghan Markle&#39;s Instagram (Instagram)
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="javascript:void(0)" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

Markle and Prince Harry visited the London radio station Reprezent for their second official event as an engaged couple earlier this week.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Prince Harry and Ms. Meghan Markle arrive at POP Brixton to visit <a href="https://twitter.com/ReprezentRadio?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ReprezentRadio</a> ???? <a href="https://t.co/NsxphnLDod">pic.twitter.com/NsxphnLDod</a>
&mdash; Kensington Palace (@KensingtonRoyal) <a href="https://twitter.com/KensingtonRoyal/status/950746354795630593?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 9, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Prince Harry and Ms. Meghan Markle will this afternoon visit <a href="https://twitter.com/ReprezentRadio?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@ReprezentRadio</a> in POP Brixton, to see their work supporting young people through creative training in radio and broadcasting. <a href="https://t.co/QzBUr7MMXA">pic.twitter.com/QzBUr7MMXA</a>
&mdash; Kensington Palace (@KensingtonRoyal) <a href="https://twitter.com/KensingtonRoyal/status/950714001138290688?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 9, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

Markle also shut her lifestyle blog The Tig nine months back after she had stopped posting anything on it for a long time.&nbsp;

Prince Harry and Markle will be getting married on May 19 this year. &nbsp;

'Ms. Markle is grateful to everyone who has followed her social media accounts over the years, however as she has not used them for some time, she has taken the decision to close them,' Kensington Palace told media

Meghan Markle has been making many changes as she prepares to enter the royal family. The Hollywood actress recently deleted all her social media accounts - Twitter, Instagram and Facebook - the Kensington Palace confirmed. “Ms. Markle is grateful to everyone who has followed her social media accounts over the years, however as she has not used them for some time, she has taken the decision to close them,” Kensington Palace told media. The professionally managed Kensington Palace pages document the appearances and news of both her fiancé and soon-to-be in-laws, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. Markle’s Twitter page (@meghanmarkle), where she had about 475,000 followers and had posted nearly 5,000 tweets, is now gone. Meghan Markle's Twitter (Twitter) × Markle’s Instagram page (@meghanmarkle), where she had about 3 million followers and more than 2,000 posts has also been deleted. Meghan Markle's Instagram (Instagram) × Markle and Prince Harry visited the London radio station Reprezent for their second official event as an engaged couple earlier this week. Prince Harry and Ms. Meghan Markle arrive at POP Brixton to visit @ReprezentRadio ???? pic.twitter.com/NsxphnLDod — Kensington Palace (@KensingtonRoyal) January 9, 2018 × Prince Harry and Ms. Meghan Markle will this afternoon visit @ReprezentRadio in POP Brixton, to see their work supporting young people through creative training in radio and broadcasting. pic.twitter.com/QzBUr7MMXA — Kensington Palace (@KensingtonRoyal) January 9, 2018 × Markle also shut her lifestyle blog The Tig nine months back after she had stopped posting anything on it for a long time. Prince Harry and Markle will be getting married on May 19 this year.

Meghan Markle deletes all social media accounts ahead of marriage to Prince Harry

The most adorable royal family in the world shared their official Christmas card for 2017 on Monday and you must see.&nbsp;

Prince <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/kate-and-prince-william-are-expecting-their-third-child-kensington-palace-confirms-19856" target="_blank">William</a>, <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/entertainment-kate-middleton-looked-like-princess-elsa-from-frozen-in-this-cold-blue-gown-25307" target="_blank">Kate Middleton</a>, Prince George and Princess Charlotte were all seen posing for the camera in coordinating outfits --powder blue in colour.&nbsp;

Chris Jackson posted their photo on his Twitter profile with caption:&nbsp;&ldquo;Delighted that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have chosen to use this family portrait I shot as their Christmas Card this year&mdash;Merry Christmas!&rdquo;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Delighted that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have chosen to use this family portrait I shot as their Christmas Card this year - Merry Christmas! ??<a href="https://twitter.com/GettyImages?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@gettyimages</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/KensingtonRoyal?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@KensingtonRoyal</a> <a href="https://t.co/5KDfIQg66Q">pic.twitter.com/5KDfIQg66Q</a>
&mdash; Chris Jackson (@ChrisJack_Getty) <a href="https://twitter.com/ChrisJack_Getty/status/942714951457755137?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 18, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

Prince George can be seen repeating his clothes with what he wore on the day of his recent birthday with some speculating that maybe the photos were taken on the same day.&nbsp;

Duchess of Cambridge Catherine (Kate) also repeated her ensemble.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Prince William, Kate Middleton, Prince George and Princess Charlotte were seen posing for the camera

The most adorable royal family in the world shared their official Christmas card for 2017 on Monday and you must see. Prince William, Kate Middleton, Prince George and Princess Charlotte were all seen posing for the camera in coordinating outfits --powder blue in colour. Chris Jackson posted their photo on his Twitter profile with caption: “Delighted that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have chosen to use this family portrait I shot as their Christmas Card this year—Merry Christmas!” Delighted that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have chosen to use this family portrait I shot as their Christmas Card this year - Merry Christmas! ??@gettyimages @KensingtonRoyal pic.twitter.com/5KDfIQg66Q — Chris Jackson (@ChrisJack_Getty) December 18, 2017 × Prince George can be seen repeating his clothes with what he wore on the day of his recent birthday with some speculating that maybe the photos were taken on the same day. Duchess of Cambridge Catherine (Kate) also repeated her ensemble.

Prince William and Kate release Christmas card and it's adorable

Is the royal marriage story we&rsquo;re being sold really a fairy tale come true? Or is it a story spun by Buckingham Palace for its own self-interest, one shrouded in myth and make-believe?

In the coverage of next spring&rsquo;s marriage between Meghan Markle and Prince Harry, two main narratives have emerged.

One is Markle&rsquo;s mixed-race, American background and how her &ldquo;acceptance&rdquo; to the royal family signals a monarchy willing to loosen its rigid rules.

The other is an improbable love story: A girl from South-Central Los Angeles is plucked from the streets by her dashing Prince Charming (&ldquo;How Meghan went from a seedy Los Angeles tenement to a Palace,&rdquo; as one Daily Mail story put it).

While both have elements of truth, they also ignore the royal family&rsquo;s complicated history with race and &ldquo;blood&rdquo; and its insistence on continuing outdated traditions. As a sociologist who researches questions of race, power and ideology, I believe we are missing the real significance of this marriage.

Out with the old? Not really

The &ldquo;modern royal family&rdquo; narrative overlooks the fact that the monarchy continues to embody a fundamentally traditional idea of British identity, a patriarchal institution steeped in nostalgia for the days of the empire.

In their carefully choreographed first joint interview with the BBC, Markle &ndash; a self-described feminist &ndash; confirmed that she was giving up her acting career in order to take up her new &ldquo;role&rdquo; as the wife of Prince Harry.

Meanwhile, the British establishment&rsquo;s long history of anti-Catholicism &ndash; deeply entrenched in its customs, laws and rituals &ndash; was on full view. Buckingham Palace was quick to announce that Markle would be baptised into the Church of England before the couple is married, presumably to assuage any lingering concerns that she might actually be Catholic. (As a teenager, she had attended the private Catholic Immaculate Heart High School in Los Angeles.)

Finally, despite some media reports, Meghan isn&rsquo;t actually about to become a princess. Because she doesn&rsquo;t come from &ldquo;royal blood,&rdquo; the arcane rules and protocols of the British aristocratic system mean she will likely be given the title &ldquo;Her Royal Highness,&rdquo; rather than &ldquo;Princess Meghan.&rdquo;

Bloody nonsense

The idea of a distinct blood category for the upper classes is, of course, absurd.

&ldquo;Bluebloods,&rdquo; we should remember, is a racialised metaphor. Skin so pale you could see the blue blood beneath &ndash; sangre azul, as the Spanish put it &ndash; signaled a distance from blackness and poverty. As the historian Kate Williams notes, it was used to differentiate &ldquo;the royals from both the tanned peasants working in the fields and the people of colour who were increasingly part of European society.&rdquo;

In 2016, when news first broke of Prince Harry&rsquo;s relationship with Markle, some coverage and commentary were driven by a racial paranoia that the supposed sanctity of the royal blood lineage was being broken (&ldquo;Harry to marry into gangster royalty?&rdquo; a Daily Star headline read). Others pointed to the danger posed not just to Harry&rsquo;s safety in dating a woman from South-Central Los Angeles, a place &ldquo;plagued by crime and riddled with street gangs,&rdquo; but to the integrity of the royal family writ large. Historically, the idea of &ldquo;Britishness&rdquo; has carried unspoken racial connotations; as cultural historian Stuart Hall noted, &ldquo;in common understanding, the nation is usually imagined as white.&rdquo; In this context, the royal family represents the national family, imagined and implicitly understood as white.

Prince Harry, to his credit, issued a rare public rebuke to the media, denouncing the &ldquo;racial undertones of comment pieces.&rdquo;

It appears, then, that this is an important moment in the slow and uneven &ndash; but nonetheless real &ndash; shift in Britain toward acknowledging the evolution of a multiracial society. But the significance of one so-called &ldquo;interracial&rdquo; marriage also shouldn&rsquo;t be overstated.

European royal families have been breeding across ethnic and national lines for centuries. The ever-so-English sounding &ldquo;House of Windsor&rdquo; is, in fact, a name made up by King George V. The real name of the Windsors was, up until then, the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. But in order to make it easier for the royal family to encourage the British working classes to take up arms against the Germans in 1917, they wanted to gloss over the uncomfortable fact that the family&rsquo;s background was more German than British.

Even &ldquo;black blood&rdquo; among the &ldquo;blue bloods&rdquo; isn&rsquo;t new. Some historians have suggested that Queen Charlotte, the wife of George III, likely had black African ancestry. Similarly, David Williamson, co-editor of the British etiquette periodical Debrett&rsquo;s Peerage, has argued that &ldquo;all European royal families somewhere are linked to the kings of Castile. There is a lot of Moorish blood in the Portuguese royal family and it has diffused over the rest of Europe.&rdquo;

A shot in the (pale) arm?

For decades, royalists have worried about the monarchy&rsquo;s future once Queen Elizabeth II finally goes. There&rsquo;s the absurdity of believing in kings and queens ordained by God, of course. But Prince Charles, the next in line, isn&rsquo;t widely liked.

This marriage could be an unexpected lifeline. Just as The House of Windsor (n&eacute;e Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) reinvented itself 100 years ago in order to maintain its authority, a familiar chain of events could be playing out.

Ironically, it is the Windsors who stand to gain the most from this relationship by maintaining their popular standing and public reputation &ndash; and, therefore, their legitimacy &ndash; by adding a touch of beautiful, light-skinned &ldquo;diversity&rdquo; into the lily-white family tree.

&ldquo;Genetically, [Markle] is blessed,&rdquo; enthused journalist Rachel Johnson (a sister of prominent MP Boris Johnson), using eugenics-style colonial reasoning to approve of the relationship.

&ldquo;The Windsors,&rdquo; she added, &ldquo;will thicken their watery, thin blue blood and Spencer pale skin and ginger hair with some rich and exotic DNA.&rdquo;

Unlike most royal marriages, which tend to be politically arranged affairs driven largely by the dynastic requirements of Europe&rsquo;s aristocratic families, Harry and Meghan do appear to be genuinely in love with each other. Outside of royal circles, so-called &ldquo;mixed-race&rdquo; relationships are no longer exceptional, but actually represent an increasing number of family units in modern Britain.

By adapting to Britain&rsquo;s changing social and cultural landscape, the royal family is desperately trying to broaden its popular appeal. Contrary to the British press&rsquo;s narrative, we might say that Harry&rsquo;s the one &ldquo;marrying up&rdquo; &ndash; not the black actress from LA.

This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" rel="nofollow" target="blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-the-british-monarchy-actually-adapting-to-changing-social-norms-88285" rel="nofollow" target="blank">original article</a>.

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

Much of the Harry and Meghan coverage has ignored the royal family's complicated history with race and "blood" and its insistence on continuing outdated traditions.

Is the royal marriage story we’re being sold really a fairy tale come true? Or is it a story spun by Buckingham Palace for its own self-interest, one shrouded in myth and make-believe? In the coverage of next spring’s marriage between Meghan Markle and Prince Harry, two main narratives have emerged. One is Markle’s mixed-race, American background and how her “acceptance” to the royal family signals a monarchy willing to loosen its rigid rules. The other is an improbable love story: A girl from South-Central Los Angeles is plucked from the streets by her dashing Prince Charming (“How Meghan went from a seedy Los Angeles tenement to a Palace,” as one Daily Mail story put it). While both have elements of truth, they also ignore the royal family’s complicated history with race and “blood” and its insistence on continuing outdated traditions. As a sociologist who researches questions of race, power and ideology, I believe we are missing the real significance of this marriage. Out with the old? Not really The “modern royal family” narrative overlooks the fact that the monarchy continues to embody a fundamentally traditional idea of British identity, a patriarchal institution steeped in nostalgia for the days of the empire. In their carefully choreographed first joint interview with the BBC, Markle – a self-described feminist – confirmed that she was giving up her acting career in order to take up her new “role” as the wife of Prince Harry. Meanwhile, the British establishment’s long history of anti-Catholicism – deeply entrenched in its customs, laws and rituals – was on full view. Buckingham Palace was quick to announce that Markle would be baptised into the Church of England before the couple is married, presumably to assuage any lingering concerns that she might actually be Catholic. (As a teenager, she had attended the private Catholic Immaculate Heart High School in Los Angeles.) Finally, despite some media reports, Meghan isn’t actually about to become a princess. Because she doesn’t come from “royal blood,” the arcane rules and protocols of the British aristocratic system mean she will likely be given the title “Her Royal Highness,” rather than “Princess Meghan.” Bloody nonsense The idea of a distinct blood category for the upper classes is, of course, absurd. “Bluebloods,” we should remember, is a racialised metaphor. Skin so pale you could see the blue blood beneath – sangre azul, as the Spanish put it – signaled a distance from blackness and poverty. As the historian Kate Williams notes, it was used to differentiate “the royals from both the tanned peasants working in the fields and the people of colour who were increasingly part of European society.” In 2016, when news first broke of Prince Harry’s relationship with Markle, some coverage and commentary were driven by a racial paranoia that the supposed sanctity of the royal blood lineage was being broken (“Harry to marry into gangster royalty?” a Daily Star headline read). Others pointed to the danger posed not just to Harry’s safety in dating a woman from South-Central Los Angeles, a place “plagued by crime and riddled with street gangs,” but to the integrity of the royal family writ large. Historically, the idea of “Britishness” has carried unspoken racial connotations; as cultural historian Stuart Hall noted, “in common understanding, the nation is usually imagined as white.” In this context, the royal family represents the national family, imagined and implicitly understood as white. Prince Harry, to his credit, issued a rare public rebuke to the media, denouncing the “racial undertones of comment pieces.” It appears, then, that this is an important moment in the slow and uneven – but nonetheless real – shift in Britain toward acknowledging the evolution of a multiracial society. But the significance of one so-called “interracial” marriage also shouldn’t be overstated. European royal families have been breeding across ethnic and national lines for centuries. The ever-so-English sounding “House of Windsor” is, in fact, a name made up by King George V. The real name of the Windsors was, up until then, the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. But in order to make it easier for the royal family to encourage the British working classes to take up arms against the Germans in 1917, they wanted to gloss over the uncomfortable fact that the family’s background was more German than British. Even “black blood” among the “blue bloods” isn’t new. Some historians have suggested that Queen Charlotte, the wife of George III, likely had black African ancestry. Similarly, David Williamson, co-editor of the British etiquette periodical Debrett’s Peerage, has argued that “all European royal families somewhere are linked to the kings of Castile. There is a lot of Moorish blood in the Portuguese royal family and it has diffused over the rest of Europe.” A shot in the (pale) arm? For decades, royalists have worried about the monarchy’s future once Queen Elizabeth II finally goes. There’s the absurdity of believing in kings and queens ordained by God, of course. But Prince Charles, the next in line, isn’t widely liked. This marriage could be an unexpected lifeline. Just as The House of Windsor (née Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) reinvented itself 100 years ago in order to maintain its authority, a familiar chain of events could be playing out. Ironically, it is the Windsors who stand to gain the most from this relationship by maintaining their popular standing and public reputation – and, therefore, their legitimacy – by adding a touch of beautiful, light-skinned “diversity” into the lily-white family tree. “Genetically, [Markle] is blessed,” enthused journalist Rachel Johnson (a sister of prominent MP Boris Johnson), using eugenics-style colonial reasoning to approve of the relationship. “The Windsors,” she added, “will thicken their watery, thin blue blood and Spencer pale skin and ginger hair with some rich and exotic DNA.” Unlike most royal marriages, which tend to be politically arranged affairs driven largely by the dynastic requirements of Europe’s aristocratic families, Harry and Meghan do appear to be genuinely in love with each other. Outside of royal circles, so-called “mixed-race” relationships are no longer exceptional, but actually represent an increasing number of family units in modern Britain. By adapting to Britain’s changing social and cultural landscape, the royal family is desperately trying to broaden its popular appeal. Contrary to the British press’s narrative, we might say that Harry’s the one “marrying up” – not the black actress from LA. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

Opinion: Is the British monarchy actually adapting to changing social norms?

From her engagement to Prince Charles as a shy teenager to her roles as doting mother, humanitarian and global celebrity, Diana&#39;s turbulent life still captivates people around the world.

Young, beautiful and fun, she seemed refreshingly informal when she married the heir to the throne in 1981 at age 20, after what the media and palace officials portrayed as a fairytale romance.

But the acrimonious breakdown of her relationship with Charles, during which every salacious detail was played out in the world&#39;s newspapers, would shake the monarchy to the core and drive her to self-harm.

For many people, the public image of Diana remains fixed as she was in an extraordinary 1995 interview in which she spoke out about her feelings over her husband&#39;s affair with Camilla Parker Bowles, her own infidelity and her history of self-harm.

The way she spilled secrets, stripping the monarchy of its mystique and casting doubt on Charles&#39;s ability to be king, drew horror in some parts of the British establishment.

But for many ordinary people, her troubles -- revived once again in a slew of new documentaries and interviews -- made her only more popular.

&quot;Like Marilyn Monroe, she has frozen in time. She was like a creature locked in a piece of amber. There forever -- beautiful, young, vulnerable and damaged,&quot; said royal biographer Penny Junor.

Before and after the royal wedding

Born on July 1, 1961, Diana grew up in an aristocratic family with ties to the monarch -- her father worked for the late king George VI and Queen Elizabeth II.

She grew up with three siblings, in a childhood marred by the bitter break-up of her parents.

She left school at 16 with no qualifications and went to finishing school in Switzerland, before getting a job in a nursery in London.

From the moment she was linked to Charles, however, her life changed.

The prince was under increasing pressure to find a bride, and at the age of 32, he proposed -- perhaps too soon.

Diana said they only met 13 times before their wedding.

She quickly fulfilled her primary duty as princess, with the birth of an heir, William, the following year, followed by Harry two years later.

Diana was a hands-on, adoring mother, and also possessed a remarkable empathy that drew people to her. Coupled with a strong sense of style, she rode a wave of popular and media enthusiasm for the monarchy.

She used her position to champion some of the most marginalised groups in society, shaking hands with patients with AIDS and leprosy, who were viewed as pariahs at the time.

But beneath the surface, she was in turmoil, plagued by bulimia and wracked by self-doubt made worse by the feeling that her husband did not love her -- and the rest of the royals did not care.

End of a fairytale 
 
Rumours that the marriage was in trouble broke into the open in 1992, after Andrew Morton lifted the lid on Diana&#39;s misery with a revelatory book, tactically endorsed by the princess herself.

That year ended with the bombshell announcement that the royal couple would separate.

The scandal only deepened with further recriminations and allegations appearing in the media, before first Charles and then Diana admitted to being unfaithful.

In her 1995 interview with the BBC&#39;s Panorama programme, Diana gave her version of events, admitting her affair with army officer James Hewitt, but also criticising the royals and questioning her husband&#39;s ability to be king.

This crossed a line. A few weeks later, the queen, who had already publicly expressed her sadness at the situation, wrote to both Charles and Diana urging them to seek a divorce.

On August 28, 1996, the divorce was granted and Diana was stripped of her title of Her Royal Highness. The fairytale was over.

End of an era 
 
Still a princess, Diana remained in the public eye.

She found new love in Dodi Fayed, the son of millionaire businessman Mohamed Al Fayed, who was also killed with her on August 31, 1997, as their car was chased by paparazzi through the streets of Paris.

The outpouring of public grief was immense.

Millions of flowers were left outside her home at Kensington Palace, and thousands lined the streets of London to pay their last respects at her funeral.

Much of the popular anger over her death was directed at the royal family, fuelled by the queen&#39;s initial refusal to return to London to greet the crowds, and there was a surge of republicanism.

Two decades on, public support for the monarchy is as strong as ever and Charles -- with Camilla -- has to a large extent been rehabilitated.

But neither will likely ever match the popularity of his first wife, the self-styled &quot;queen of people&#39;s hearts&quot;.

In her interview in 1995, Diana gave her version of events, admitting her affair with an army, but also criticising the royals and questioning her husband's ability to be king.

From her engagement to Prince Charles as a shy teenager to her roles as doting mother, humanitarian and global celebrity, Diana's turbulent life still captivates people around the world. Young, beautiful and fun, she seemed refreshingly informal when she married the heir to the throne in 1981 at age 20, after what the media and palace officials portrayed as a fairytale romance. But the acrimonious breakdown of her relationship with Charles, during which every salacious detail was played out in the world's newspapers, would shake the monarchy to the core and drive her to self-harm. For many people, the public image of Diana remains fixed as she was in an extraordinary 1995 interview in which she spoke out about her feelings over her husband's affair with Camilla Parker Bowles, her own infidelity and her history of self-harm. The way she spilled secrets, stripping the monarchy of its mystique and casting doubt on Charles's ability to be king, drew horror in some parts of the British establishment. But for many ordinary people, her troubles -- revived once again in a slew of new documentaries and interviews -- made her only more popular. "Like Marilyn Monroe, she has frozen in time. She was like a creature locked in a piece of amber. There forever -- beautiful, young, vulnerable and damaged," said royal biographer Penny Junor. Before and after the royal wedding Born on July 1, 1961, Diana grew up in an aristocratic family with ties to the monarch -- her father worked for the late king George VI and Queen Elizabeth II. She grew up with three siblings, in a childhood marred by the bitter break-up of her parents. She left school at 16 with no qualifications and went to finishing school in Switzerland, before getting a job in a nursery in London. From the moment she was linked to Charles, however, her life changed. The prince was under increasing pressure to find a bride, and at the age of 32, he proposed -- perhaps too soon. Diana said they only met 13 times before their wedding. She quickly fulfilled her primary duty as princess, with the birth of an heir, William, the following year, followed by Harry two years later. Diana was a hands-on, adoring mother, and also possessed a remarkable empathy that drew people to her. Coupled with a strong sense of style, she rode a wave of popular and media enthusiasm for the monarchy. She used her position to champion some of the most marginalised groups in society, shaking hands with patients with AIDS and leprosy, who were viewed as pariahs at the time. But beneath the surface, she was in turmoil, plagued by bulimia and wracked by self-doubt made worse by the feeling that her husband did not love her -- and the rest of the royals did not care. End of a fairytale Rumours that the marriage was in trouble broke into the open in 1992, after Andrew Morton lifted the lid on Diana's misery with a revelatory book, tactically endorsed by the princess herself. That year ended with the bombshell announcement that the royal couple would separate. The scandal only deepened with further recriminations and allegations appearing in the media, before first Charles and then Diana admitted to being unfaithful. In her 1995 interview with the BBC's Panorama programme, Diana gave her version of events, admitting her affair with army officer James Hewitt, but also criticising the royals and questioning her husband's ability to be king. This crossed a line. A few weeks later, the queen, who had already publicly expressed her sadness at the situation, wrote to both Charles and Diana urging them to seek a divorce. On August 28, 1996, the divorce was granted and Diana was stripped of her title of Her Royal Highness. The fairytale was over. End of an era Still a princess, Diana remained in the public eye. She found new love in Dodi Fayed, the son of millionaire businessman Mohamed Al Fayed, who was also killed with her on August 31, 1997, as their car was chased by paparazzi through the streets of Paris. The outpouring of public grief was immense. Millions of flowers were left outside her home at Kensington Palace, and thousands lined the streets of London to pay their last respects at her funeral. Much of the popular anger over her death was directed at the royal family, fuelled by the queen's initial refusal to return to London to greet the crowds, and there was a surge of republicanism. Two decades on, public support for the monarchy is as strong as ever and Charles -- with Camilla -- has to a large extent been rehabilitated. But neither will likely ever match the popularity of his first wife, the self-styled "queen of people's hearts".

'Frozen in time': Princess Diana's fairytale ended in tragedy

royal-family

Royal Family, News on Royal Family, stories on Royal Family, articles on Royal Family, Royal Family stories at Wion, Royal Family news, Royal Family latest news