And consider that unlike Ms. Markle’s future sister-in-law, who has been adept at walking the very fine fashion line between classic and accessible with her patronage of brands from the high-end (Jenny Packham and Temperley London) to the high street (Zara, Topshop, Reiss), always with a sensible pump (often by L.K. Bennett) and de rigueur sheer stockings, Prince Harry’s bride will have a certain leeway. She can be more adventurous, less strictly appropriate.

That is both because her future husband is further from the responsibilities of the throne, and because the expectations surrounding them are different: their job, to a certain extent, is to push boundaries; to be even more relatable and modern than are Catherine and William.

I mean: Ms. Markle did wear ripped jeans (ripped jeans!) to sit near her future husband at the Invictus Games in September in Toronto. It caused a hoo-ha, but as she began, so she may continue. Just imagine the big step forward she could take with bare legs. Certainly, the strappy Aquazzura stilettos she chose for her engagement debut were more daring than her sister-in-law’s trademark footwear.

Will she choose to champion certain British designers — perhaps, like Michelle Obama with American ones, the edgier and up-and-coming (Simone Rocha? J.W. Anderson?) — the better to promote them around the world and show her loyalty to her new country? Or will she underscore the values of cross-border relationships in the face of British isolationism, and work with some names from the United States? Those famous jeans were by the Los Angeles-based brand Mother, known for producing its denim in the U.S.A. Presumably, though she wore some Canadian brands while filming the television show “Suits” in Toronto, as she did on Monday with LINE, she won’t regularly continue, though it’s possible the fact she did not choose a U.K. designer for her engagement look is telling. Will she work with a single designer, or spread her favor?