Is Mise has raised biological factors which nobody wants to talk about, but which are not going away.

Toni, given that Queen Elizabeth got the job by double default, (first Uncle George decides he's going to shtum a divorcee, forcing his brother into the job. The first default.
Then the brother goes and dies, forcing his daughter, Elizabeth, into the job as ruler. Second default.) so she had no say, if she did not want a third default and the scandal that went with it.
She could have passed on the job. Because she knew her place and what was expected of her, she did her duty and went on to become queen.
She is the kind of people I have respect for. Unlike her two maggot daughter-in-laws.
They turned out to be common maggots of the selfish kind so prevalent today.
I sense Markle may go the same way. Let's wait and see.
So Toni, next time there is an election to vote in a 'queen', whether it be a male or a female, I'll be sure to check which one is best suited for the job. Although I feel they would both suffer from PMS.

ALTRAV, a history lesson for you. [t was Edward VIII who abdicated on 11 December 1936, in favour of his younger brother, George VI, the Queens father. After his abdication Edward married the American divorcee Wallis Simpson. Well yes the Queens father did die. With an hereditary monarchy that is what generally happens, one dies and the heir apparent, in this case Elizabeth II takes over. Unless George never planned to die, or was going to father a son, the Queen was always going to be getting the gig!
"Unlike her two maggot daughter-in-laws." The Queen actually has had four daughter-in-laws, three living, one dead. Not sure which two you refer.

Paul, to clarify. To be specific, I am refering to Fergie and Dianna. I know they are not commoners, but my inference is that unlike the Queen, who 'stepped up' when called upon, these two were a great disappointment in maturity and commitment.
They chose to act like little spoilt snowflakes instead of committing themselves to the role and all that's expected of them.
When you join any institution like a Royal Family, you are agreeing to a strict set of rules and doctrine.
You leave ALL your personal traits behind, and you become 'public property'.
Markle was given the same induction speech by every dept of the 'machine' that is the house of Windsor.
She was informed of her new 'life' and given the option to decline should she have felt so inclined.
Once you agree to marry a 'Royal' you agree to accepting a whole new life.
One without personal whims and fancies, but one of discipline, servitude and commitment.
In other words, your life is not yours to choose anymore. You belong to your 'people'.
Dianna and Fergie displayed extreme 'common' traits by not sticking by their men and responsibilities as expected of them by church and state.
Let's not forget they swore an oath to such a commitment, to church and state, not just some random person down the street.
Anyone with maturity and 'class' has in the past, sucked it up and carried on with their chosen new life.
That shows maturity, and is deserving of our respect, if only because they have given up their original life path to a new one completely managed by others including us, their 'loyal subjects'.

I guess the sooner we come to accept that men are from venus and women from mars to sooner we can all move on.

//I guess the sooner we come to accept that men are from venus and women from mars//

No, they don't. They both come from Earth. They both belong to the same species. They share 45 out of 46 chromosomes, and their similarities are much, greater than their differences.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/busting-myths-about-human-nature/201205/men-and-women-are-the-same-species