Welcome to the Deep Dive. Today, we're focusing
on a figure whose life wasn't just lived in public,
it was, well, almost performed in public. Princess
Margaret. She was, of course, Queen Elizabeth
II's younger sister, her only sibling. But history
seems to remember her more as the quintessential
royal rebel. Yeah, and her life was this dazzling,
but also... quite heartbreaking paradox. Margaret
really, you know, she encapsulated that moment
in the mid -20th century where that rigid idea
of royal duty just violently clashed with this
growing desire for personal freedom. Right. Self
-determination. Exactly. She was glamorous, sure,
but also highly controversial. And the media
watched her with this almost obsessive intensity.
She became internationally famous, one of the
world's most celebrated socialites. So our mission
today really is to unpack that tension. We're
digging into the sources to trace her path. From
that privileged childhood, which was completely
turned upside down by the abdication through
the huge constitutional crisis sparked by her
first big romance. Then that really tumultuous,
almost toxic marriage that followed. And finally,
this unexpected, quite profound legacy she left
regarding the royals and divorce. It's quite
a journey. And we start with her birth, Margaret
Rose. Born in 1930 at Glamis Castle in Scotland,
which is, you know, a neat little historical
footnote in itself. How so? Well, she was the
first person in the direct line of succession
born in Scotland since, gosh, the 1600s. But
the real foundation of her life, the thing that
changed everything, happened when she was just
six years old. That was when her uncle, Edward
VIII, abdicated. And that act, it didn't just
make her father, Prince Albert, into King George
VI. It completely redefined Margaret herself,
didn't it? Overnight. Absolutely. She went from
being a relatively minor royal figure to suddenly
being second in line to the throne. Wow. That
huge shift really defined her early status. She
was now a child of the sovereign, the Princess
Margaret. So a privileged childhood, yes, but
as you said, completely transformed by her father
becoming king. Let's talk about her name first,
Margaret Rose. The sources actually detail a
bit of back and forth on that, right? Yeah, they
do. Apparently her mother, the queen mother,
initially wanted Anne Margaret. She thought Anne
of York sounded lovely and Elizabeth and Anne.
Well, it sounded good together, but the king,
George V, her grandfather, he wasn't keen, found
Anne maybe a bit too plain, too common. So they
compromised on Margaret Rose. It just shows,
doesn't it? Every little detail, even a name.
was subject to that kind of external approval.
Absolutely. And speaking of external forces shaping
their lives, let's look at their education. She
and Elizabeth, they were taught together by Marion
Crawford, the Scottish governess, Crawfee. Right.
But the education itself was, well. incredibly
limited it was structured entirely around their
mother's very traditional beliefs which were
well it was a very specific philosophy the queen
mother famously believed that governesses you
know they basically produced nicely behaved young
ladies equipped really only to marry well yeah
she even quipped something like after all i and
my sisters only had governesses and we all married
well one of us very well the whole focus was
on deportment conversation finding a suitable
husband Not much else. That attitude, looking
back, it's deeply frustrating, isn't it? And
Margaret apparently felt that later on. Oh, definitely.
The sources say she expressed real resentment
about this very restricted education. She felt
it kind of hampered her intellectual development.
And she sometimes criticized her mother for,
you know, prioritizing those superficial aspects
of being a nicely behaved royal over proper academic
learning. So you get this tension building early
on. She's being bred for a role she kind of resents,
but she also understands its limits perfectly.
Exactly. And that upbringing gets interrupted
by World War II. When the war started, the two
princesses were moved to Windsor Castle for safety.
There was pressure, apparently, from politicians,
the press, to send them to Canada. But they stayed.
And that led to that very famous quote from the
Queen Mother, defining the family's wartime stance.
That's the one. The children won't go without
me. I won't leave without the king. And the king
will never leave. Real determination there. Yeah.
So during the war, Elizabeth, she eventually
got to join the Auxiliary Territorial Service.
But Margaret was too young for any formal duties.
And that kind of left a vacuum. It did. And it
allowed her personality to really blossom and,
frankly, to be indulged. Her father, King George
VI, he was particularly taken with her. He famously
called Elizabeth his pride and Margaret his joy.
And that indulgence, it became pretty obvious,
didn't it? People thought she was quite spoiled.
Significantly spoiled, according to contemporaries.
And the sources give us some concrete examples
of this favoritism. She got really good at music
piano, singing show tunes, channeling that sort
of theatrical energy she had. And the big one.
Yeah. The sign of her special status. Being allowed
to stay up for dinner with the adults at age
13. Wow. In that kind of strictly regimented
royal household, that was a big deal. Huge. Croffey,
the governess, she apparently worried about all
the attention Margaret drew. But Elizabeth, the
heir, she didn't seem to mind. She apparently
just said, oh, it's so much easier when Margaret's
there. Everybody laughs at what Margaret says.
Huh. So that dynamic was set early on. Margaret,
the charismatic entertainer. Elizabeth, the dutiful
center. Exactly. And it defined their relationship
for decades. So Margaret enters the post -war
world already armed with that theatrical flair,
that quick wit, and this charisma that could,
you know. charm pretty much anyone. That little
bit of freedom her parents gave her. It really
hints at the explosion of personality that was
about to hit London society. Precisely. Once
the war ended in 1945 and the sort of wartime
restrictions lifted, Margaret, now in her late
teens, early 20s, she didn't hold back. She almost
immediately became known as the unconventional
royal. celebrated for her energy, her vivacity,
and this really glamorous fashion sense. Those
striking, vivid blue eyes were always mentioned,
too. And she became a real fixture on the post
-war social scene, didn't she? This wasn't just,
like, polite mingling. She was actively out there
socializing with high society, young aristocrats,
even celebrities like Danny Kaye. Yes, these
were the friends who got famously dubbed the
Margaret set. Margaret set, right. And this set...
It was a definite departure from the sort of
stuffy traditional royal circles. They were fashionable,
sometimes a bit bohemian. They went to all the
talked about spots in London, the 400 Club, the
Café de Paris, the Mirabelle restaurant. Basically
chasing the bright lights of the late 40s and
50s. Absolutely. And because Princess Margaret
was involved, the media followed every single
move they made. That press frenzy seems inevitable,
looking back. And Margaret's own actions really
helped cement that early reputation. Not just
glamorous, but a bit of a rebel. There's that
famous story from 1949, the fancy dress ball.
Oh, yes. At the U .S. Ambassador's Place, Margaret
got up on stage and performed the can -can, accompanied
by the ambassador's daughter, Charmaine Douglas.
The can -can. Yeah. That must have caused a stir.
Explosive reaction, dancing the can -can, you
know, that notoriously scandalous high -kicking
dance. It was seen as highly improper for a senior
royal. So the press went mad. Completely wild.
It really cemented her image as someone pushing
against royal decorum. Poor Danny Kaye even had
to issue a statement denying he taught her the
routine. She was basically broadcasting her desire
for a more modern, freer life. And society was
either scandalized or, frankly, completely charmed.
And it seems charm won out, at least initially.
The press called her the world's most eligible
bachelor girl. And there was constant... speculation
about who she might marry. Oh, intense speculation.
The sources mention over 30 potential suitors
titled guys like Lord Blanford, Lord Dalkeith,
even interestingly, the future Canadian prime
minister, John Turner. So no shortage of options.
But the pressure must have been huge to choose
someone. Immense pressure titled wealthy, stable.
That was the ideal. The family apparently hoped
for Lord Dalkeith, but he was maybe a bit too
outdoorsy for her. Her most regular date in the
mid -50s was reportedly Billy Wallace, heir to
a massive fortune, 2 .8 million pounds back then.
But she didn't settle down quickly. Yeah. And
as she got into her late 20s, still unmarried,
the press coverage started to shift, didn't it?
Dramatically. It went from excitement, who might
she choose, to this sort of underlying concern
that maybe she'd remain a spinster. And this
rising pressure combined with her father's death
and probably a need for some emotional stability,
it created the perfect agonizing backdrop for
the romance that would absolutely define her
public life. Peter Townsend. Right. Peter Townsend.
This wasn't just a personal love story. It blew
up into a full blown constitutional crisis. It
really forced Britain to confront its attitudes
towards divorce and the monarchy's place in a
world that was changing fast. Exactly. Peter
Townsend. He was a highly decorated RAF officer,
a genuine battle Britain hero. He was also one
of her father's equerries. And crucially. Crucially,
he was 15 years older than Margaret and he was
married with two children when they first met
back in 1944. Margaret herself said her feelings
for him really developed during that 1947 state
tour of South Africa, is that right? That's what
she claimed, yes. Their bond deepened privately
over the years, especially after King George
VI died so suddenly in February 1952. Townsend
finalized his own divorce in December 1952. And
he proposed to Margaret shortly after, probably
early 1953. And that's when the constitutional
hammer came down. The Royal Marriages Act of
1772. That was the big legal barrier. Since Margaret
was under 25 at the time, the Queen's consent
was absolutely mandatory. But the real problem
was Elizabeth II's tricky dual role. she was
the sovereign head of state but also the supreme
governor of the church of england exactly and
the church of england at that time was completely
uncompromising it refused to countenance the
remarriage of any divorced person whose former
spouse was still living the archbishop of canterbury
made it very clear he would not approve so the
queen was stuck in this impossible position completely
caught her primary duty was to the church to
the stability of the crown her sister's personal
happiness Well, it had to come second to that
structure. So she asked Margaret and Townsend
to wait just one year until after her coronation
and her big Commonwealth tour were done. Trying
to buy time, basically. But that attempt at keeping
it quiet? That didn't last long, did it? Failed
almost immediately. The whole romance burst into
public knowledge during the 1953 coronation.
Reporters saw Margaret standing on the balcony
just casually picking a piece of fluff off Townsend's
coat. Such a tiny, intimate gesture. Seemingly
innocent, yes. But as Townsend himself later
said, after that the storm broke. The People
newspaper ran the first story about the scandalous
rumors and the crisis just exploded. The big
fear in the establishment, you see, was that
this was 1936 all over again. The abdication
crisis. Right, where a royal choice of spouse
had led to an abdication and irrevocably shaken
public trust in the monarchy. They couldn't risk
that again. Let's really focus on the weight
of the pressure they put on Margaret. If she
chose to marry Townsend, the government, the
Commonwealth prime ministers, They were all against
it unless she formally renounced her rights to
the throne. What did that actually mean in practice?
Well, it meant losing her position as a counselor
of state. That's a significant role she could
act on the monarch's behalf, sign documents if
the queen was abroad or ill. So a real tangible
function. Definitely. And she'd also lose her
financial independence. Her civil list allowance,
£6 ,000 a year, plus this extra £15 ,000 allowance,
Parliament had specifically set aside for her
to make a suitable marriage. She'd essentially
become a royal outcast, financially cut off.
So the stakes were incredibly high, way beyond
just personal happiness. It was financial, functional,
tied to her whole official identity. Absolutely.
And to sort of break things up immediately, Winston
Churchill arranged for Townsend to be sent away,
a sudden exile, basically. July 1953, he was
posted as an heir attaché in Brussels. Just like
that. Separated. Just like that. And for the
next two years, while they were apart, the whole
nation debated it. Opinion polls showed this
huge gap between the establishment view and what
the public thought. Yeah, I read that something
like 97 % of Daily Mirror readers approved of
the marriage. Incredible, isn't it? The public
clearly backed her personal choice, her happiness.
It shows how fast attitudes towards divorce were
actually changing in society. But the establishment
wasn't budging. Not an inch. The Times ran this
really stern editorial warning that marrying
a divorced man would irrevocably disqualify her
from her royal duties. And the church was blunt,
too, telling her she might not even be able to
receive communion if she went ahead. Wow. But
then there's this twist, isn't there? This aha
moment from the sources that kind of reframes
the whole thing. There is. And it's truly profound.
Documents released much later in 2004 revealed
that the constitutional brick wall, well, it
wasn't quite as solid as everyone thought at
the time. The queen and the prime minister then,
Anthony Eden, had actually worked out a secret
plan. A secret plan to let her marry him. Essentially,
yes, to amend the 1772 Act. Wait, so there was
a way they weren't just leaving her to make this
impossible choice alone? Apparently not. Eden,
who was actually divorced and remarried himself,
so he was sympathetic, he worked with the queen
to find a compromise, something that would avoid
the trauma of 1936, but still respect Margaret's
feelings. The plan was Margaret could marry Townsend.
Okay, so what were the conditions? What would
she have lost under this plan? Under Eden's plan,
she would have been removed from the line of
succession. That was the key political safeguard.
But, and this is crucial, she would keep her
royal title, HRH. She'd keep her civilist allowance,
she could stay in the country, and she could
even continue doing public duties. That's completely
different from the narrative we usually hear.
It really is. Eden wrote that the queen didn't
want to stand in the way of her sister's happiness.
It shows there was immense political effort behind
the scenes to find a middle way. So if the monarchy
and the government had actually found a potential
path, then the final decision really did rest
entirely with Margaret herself. Was it her faith
in the end? Or protecting the monarchy's image?
It seems it was the latter, framed by the former.
On October 31st, 1955, she released that famous
statement. But mindful of the church's teachings
that Christian marriage is indissoluble and conscious
of my duty to the Commonwealth, I have resolved
to put these considerations before others. Such
a formal duty bound statement, despite what must
have been personal devastation. And the statement
itself, apparently they wrote it together. She
and Townsend drafted it. Townsend later recalled
they both felt this. unimaginable relief at being
liberated at last from this monstrous problem.
But that relief definitely didn't last. The emotional
cost was huge. And the sources reveal the bitterness
that came later. When Townsend announced in 1959
that he was marrying someone else, a young Belgian
woman who apparently looked quite a bit like
Margaret, Margaret was reportedly devastated.
She wrote to him, basically accusing him of betraying
this pact they supposedly had not to marry anyone
else. And she demanded he destroy all her love
letters, the sacrifice she'd made for the institution.
It must have felt incredibly personal and ultimately
unreciprocated in that moment. Yeah, the sources
really suggest she was deeply wounded by Townsend
getting married again. She had tried to move
on herself, hadn't she? She'd accepted a proposal
from Billy Wallace in 1956. She had, but that
engagement ended very quickly when Wallace apparently
admitted to having an affair while she was away,
so more heartbreak piled on. And then came Anthony
Armstrong Jones, the photographer. Yes, they
met in 1958. And the sources suggest Margaret
accepted his proposal in October 1959, and this
is the key bit, reportedly the day after she
heard Townsend was getting married. Oof, that
timing. It suggests it might have been a bit
of a rebound, or maybe even a bit of revenge.
It certainly suggests a need for swift action,
for stability, whatever the driving emotion was.
Their engagement announcement in February 1960
was a huge shock to the public. Why? Because
he was a commoner. Partly, but mainly because
they'd managed to keep the whole romance completely
secret from the press, who were watching her
like hawks. That's quite an achievement. It really
was. And the wedding itself in May 1960 was groundbreaking.
The first royal wedding on TV. Ever. Huge audience
estimated 300 million viewers worldwide. It was
a massive PR win for the monarchy, projecting
this image of modernization. Her husband was
made Earl of Snowdom. And they became this instant
symbol, didn't they, the swinging 60s couple?
Absolutely. Lord Snowden, being a commoner, an
artist, he brought this genuinely bohemian sort
of working class circle of friends into the royal
orbit. And initially the press loved it, saw
it as the monarchy finally breaking down those
rigid British class barriers, embracing the modern
age. They certainly looked the part, experimenting
with 60s fashion, projecting this cool dynamic
image, very different from the Queen's steady
tradition. Completely. They had two children,
David and Sarah, both born by cesarean section,
apparently at Margaret's request. But that glamorous
veneer didn't last long, did it? The marriage
started to unravel pretty quickly. Very quickly.
It descended into this really intense toxicity
and infidelity on both sides. Snowden was known
for having numerous affairs. The sources are
quite blunt. If something moved, he likely chased
it. And Margaret. Margaret also had affairs,
including with Anthony Barton, who was actually
her daughter's godfather, and a brief liaison
with Robin Douglas' home. But it sounds like
it went beyond just affairs. There was real cruelty
involved, particularly from Snowden. Far beyond
infidelity, yes. The sources describe this pattern
of really cruel psychological behavior from Snowden.
He apparently used these tactics designed specifically
to wound her, leaving nasty little notes. Notes?
What kind of notes? Scathing notes listing things
I hate about you, hidden in her books, under
her pillow, places where she'd find them unexpectedly.
That's chilling. That detail about the notes,
it just shows the darkness beneath that glass.
glamorous surface. Absolutely. One of the worst
notes mentioned reportedly read, you look like
a Jewish manicurist and I hate you. Wow. That
level of malice aimed at his wife, the queen's
sister. It's astounding. It really confirms that
maybe the class difference, their fundamental
incompatibility, it was just too vast. It led
to this mutual resentment and cruelty. By 1973,
Margaret was clearly looking for some kind of
emotional escape and she met Roddy Llewellyn.
Roddy Llewellyn. 17 years younger than her. Yes.
She began what she described as a loving friendship
with him. And that relationship is what finally
brought the marriage breakdown crashing into
the public eye, wasn't it? In 1976. Violently
into the public eye, the tabloids got hold of
photos, front page stuff of Margaret and Llewellyn
in swimsuits, holidaying together on her private
estate in Moustique Le Joliot. And the reaction?
Immediate. Ferocious. The separation was officially
announced in March 1976, and some Labour MPs
actually denounced her in Parliament, called
her a royal parasite and a floozy. Vicious. The
public scrutiny was relentless, and much, much
harsher than anything directed at her husband
for his own well -known affairs. So all this
public drama, it leads to the watershed moment,
the divorce, finalized in July 1978. The first
divorce of a senior member of the British royal
family since 1901, a huge moment. And Margaret's
reaction? She was reportedly devastated by the
whole process, and she never remarried. Though
interestingly, she and Snowden managed to maintain
a surprisingly civil, even friendly relationship
right up until her death. But that difficult
journey she went through. It inadvertently cracked
open the door for the monarchy, didn't it? The
very decision she made back in 55 to uphold tradition.
Ironically, it was undone by her own need for
liberation in 78. It's important to remember,
though, despite all that private turmoil, Princess
Margaret was still a working senior royal. She
carried out quite a lot of public service, especially
representing the Crown overseas. She did. She
started early, launching the ocean liner Edinburgh
Castle in Belfast back in 1947, often accompanied
her parents on tours. And her own tours made
quite an impact. Immense impact overseas. That
1955 tour of the Caribbean, for example, created
a huge sensation. Local musicians wrote calypsos
dedicated to her. It shows that unique international
charm she had. And as the Commonwealth changed,
she was often the one sent to represent the crown
at those really crucial independence ceremonies.
Jamaica in 62, later Tuvalu and Dominica in 78.
She was often tasked with handling those significant,
sometimes delicate transitions. And back home,
her focus was mainly on the arts and charities.
Heavily on arts and welfare, yes. She was president
of the NSPCC, the National Society for the Prevention
of Cruelty to Children, and grand president of
the St. John Ambulance Brigade, important roles.
And she used her position for things she cared
about, like the arts. Very effectively, especially
for ballet and music, which were real passions.
The sources detail how she was instrumental in
setting up a fund for Dame Margot Fontaine, the
great ballerina, when Fontaine faced serious
money... troubles later in life. That wasn't
just passive patronage. It was active support.
You mentioned her intelligence earlier, the writer
Gore Vidal, saying she was far too intelligent
for her station in life. She must have been acutely
aware of her public image, the role she played
in the whole royal story. Oh, absolutely aware.
She reportedly even referred to that sort of
dichotomy herself, claiming that if her sister,
the queen, had to be the source of honor, the
stable center, then she Margaret, must be the
focus of the most creative malice, the evil sister.
Wow. Embracing the narrative. Almost a self -fulfilling
prophecy, wasn't it? Embracing the role the media
and perhaps the system itself had kind of created
for her. But that pressure, that lifestyle, it
eventually took a really severe physical toll,
didn't it? It did. For most of her adult life,
she was a heavy smoker and drinker. Chesterfield
cigarettes and famous grouse whiskey were her
particular preferences. Many saw it as, you know,
a coping mechanism for the stresses and constraints
of her life. And that caught up with her in 1985.
Yes. In 1985, she had part of her left lung removed,
an operation that sadly, eerily mirrored the
lung operation her own father had undergone 34
years earlier, the illness that ultimately led
to his early death. Did she quit smoking then?
Officially, yes. Though some sources, like servants,
claim they still occasionally smelled cigarette
smoke in her apartment afterwards. Make of that
what you will. And the decline continued later
on. It did, sadly. In the late 1990s, she suffered
a series of strokes. Three between 1998 and 2001.
And the effects were quite severe. Yes. They
left her with partial vision and paralysis on
her left side. Towards the end, she often needed
a wheelchair. It was a very visible sign of her
failing health. She died in 2002. In her sleep,
yes. February 9th, 2002, at the age of 71. At
slow crematorium, of all places. Why cremation?
That's very unusual for senior royals. Her lady
-in -waiting explained it. Apparently Margaret
found the traditional royal burial ground at
Frogmore very gloomy. Huh. So in the end, her
ashes were interred alongside her parents, King
George VI and Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother,
in the King George VI Memorial Chapel at Windsor.
A final act of rebellion, perhaps, followed by
a return to the man who always called her his
joy. It's easy, isn't it, to get caught up in
the drama and the tragedy. But Margaret left
a really significant mark in other areas, too,
like style. Oh, definitely. She was a recognized
fashion icon, known for the Margaret look. And
it was quite purposefully constructed, you know,
to contrast with her sister's much more stable
traditional appearance. How so? What defined
the Margaret look? Well, she embraced trends.
Mod accessories, those dramatic sunglasses she
favored, magnificent hats. She was a real trend
follower in a way the queen simply couldn't be.
And she had a connection with designers. A very
close lifelong relationship with Christian Dior
particularly. That famous cream gown he designed
for her 21st birthday in 1950. It's still cited
as one of the truly iconic royal fashion moments.
Yeah, I can picture it. British Vogue noted her
style really hit her stride in the mid 60s, put
her right up there alongside icons like the Beatles.
She embodied this kind of royal glamour that
felt maybe a bit more accessible, relatable,
yet still completely aspirational. OK, let's
shift gears a bit to finance. What do we know
about her wealth? Well, during her lifetime,
her fortune was estimated at around 20 million
pounds, mostly inherited from her father and
various valuable items passed down from her grandmother,
Queen Mary. And after her death? Her estate was
valued at 7 .6 million. But after inheritance
tax was paid, that came down to about $4 .5 million.
And paying that tax bill, plus providing for
her grandchildren, led to that quite controversial
decision to auction off a lot of her personal
belongings, didn't it, through Christie's in
2006? Very controversial, yes, because many people
felt these were significant historical royal
items, things that really should have stayed
within the main royal collection. But the auction
went ahead, and the results were pretty astonishing.
Staggering results. They speak volumes about
the value of the public, or at least collectors,
placed on objects that had been touched by her
life, her story. The wholesale totaled over 13
.6 million. That was nearly double the pre -sale
estimate. Wow. So the provenance, the Margaret
Connection. It was key. Absolutely key. Items
consistently smashed records. There was a Fabergé
clock, for instance. It sold for $1 .24 million,
a world record price for a Fabergé clock at auction
at that time. Incredible. And the most famous
item? Probably the Baltimore tiara, the one she
wore at her wedding. That sold for 926 ,400 pounds.
To a private bidder. Yes. And that tiara being
sold off like that, it almost became a symbol
of the, well, the cost of her turbulent life,
the financial need driving the sale, sort of
underlined this idea that even in death, her
life involved this very visible public expense.
But beyond the fashion and the finance, the deepest
legacy, surely, is the impact she had on the
monarchy and divorce. That freedom she inadvertently
secured. Without a doubt, despite her very conscious
choice for duty back in 1955, the independent
newspaper later called that whole town's an affair,
a watershed in the nation's attitude towards
divorce. Because her own later struggles changed
everything. Exactly. Her painful public struggle
and eventual divorce in 1978, that provided the
absolutely critical precedent. When her nephews
and niece, Prince Charles, Prince Andrew, Princess
Anne, when their marriages broke down in the
1990s, the public outcry, while still there,
was dramatically less intense compared to the
fury that was directed at Margaret back in the
50s and again in the 70s. It's like she walked
that incredibly difficult, painful path first
so they could follow on a slightly smoother one.
So when we try to pull it all together, Princess
Margaret's life, we're left with this really
stark, maybe even beautiful paradox, aren't we?
Completely. She was the royal who, back in 1955,
chose faith and duty, stated publicly that Christian
marriage was indissoluble. Only to become, just
two decades later, the absolute symbol of the
royal divorce watershed. She was trapped, really,
by the very rigid, duty -bound system she had
chosen to protect back then. Her cousin, Lord
Litchfield, described her life towards the end
as feeling unfulfilled. She seemed to spend her
whole life searching for a stability, a happiness,
that the crown or the constraints of her role
often seemed to deny her. And her private? Often
controversial actions, the affairs, that tumultuous
marriage, the divorce itself, they created the
very public precedent that her earlier adherence
to tradition had tried so hard to prevent. Exactly.
The rebel royal, just by following her own difficult
path, actually ended up forcing the monarchy
to modernize, didn't she? To adapt, however slowly,
to a changing society. If her father, King George
VI, saw Elizabeth as his pride and Margaret as
his joy, What does it ultimately mean that Margaret's
own pursuit of joy, of personal freedom, came
at such an immense public cost to the very system
she was born to uphold? Her life was just defined
by that struggle. It really was. It leaves us
with a final thought maybe for you, the listener,
to consider. If Margaret had chosen love over
duty back in 1955 and married Townsend, She likely
would have been exiled, possibly forgotten. And
maybe the constitutional pass for divorced royals
would have remained firmly shut. A different
timeline entirely. So by choosing duty then,
but later being unable or unwilling to maintain
that duty in her own life, did her own great
personal sacrifice inadvertently secure greater
emotional, maybe even marital liberty for all
the royals who came after her? Perhaps that life
described as unfulfilled was actually the greatest,
most complicated gift she gave to the monarchy's
future.