I honestly think that people need to reread and analyse some tragedies, because I see the term "doomed __" thrown around a lot, and I feel like some people do not really know what it means.
For something to be doomed does not mean it's just sad or tragic or terrible. It means it has an unpreventable or inescapable "fated" outcome. This distinction is important, because this makes actually that in a lot of tragedy, the tragic character isn't actually doomed in the world.
A point of a lot of Shakespeare's and Greek tragedies is how the entire tragic and ruineous outcome could have been prevented. If Othello had been a little bit more rational, then that tragedy wouldn't have happend. If Hamlet had been a bit more more resolute, then that tragedy would not have happened. These tragedies are a consequence of the tragic character's fatal flaw, and their innability to over come it when the need arises for it. You could argue that the flaw and this inability to overcome it, in a sence doomed the character', but it did not necessary doom the story.
An often wrongly used example where people refer to a doomed situation, is when someone dies (young). After all, death is the one fated end for all of us, inescapable. What could be more dooming than death?
However, the universality of death is actually what makes it not a cause of doom. Everything ends eventually. For something's and people the end is more imminent than others. Some people might even be more sure of the time, place and manner of their end than other's. But this doesn't make them more doomed than someone else who isn't.
For example, we wouldn't say that someone loving a person with a progressive mortal illness has a "doomed romance". Because their romance isn't actually meaningfully different from other people. Cause even in romances where all sides live healthily untill their eighties will inevitably (in most cases) have one person die before the other. Wouldn't that make all romances doomed? No. It just means that one should appreciate the moments that people have together, no matter if it's a minute or a century.
True doom in the world only occurs on small scales, a consequence of an action. A person who accidentaly falls from a skyscraper is most certainly doomed to die from gravity. But that person wasn't doomed to die by falling just by climbing up that skyscraper. A person who sticks their hand into the mouth of a hungry wolf is doomed to lose his arm. But he wasn't doomed yet when he met the wolf.
Only when the author decideds that the character's ending must and will be tragic, does a character become doomed. Because their fate is no longer decided by their world, but by the will of the author binding the character to one fate. The romance isn't doomed because one character might die. It's doomed because the author decided they had to die, and made everthing so that that death would be as tragic and painfull (for the characters and/or readers) as possible.
