Fashion Meghan Markle Prince Harry

Harry & Meghan’s engagement photos

This morning, Kensington Palace released three engagement photos of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. The photos were taken earlier this week at Frogmore House, Windsor by Alexi Lubomirski.

This ^ one is my favorite of the three – I think the photo is pretty.

Several hours after the first two were released, KP released a third “candid” shot with the message:

“Thank you so much for all of the wonderful comments following the release of Prince Harry and Ms. Meghan Markle’s engagement photographs. The couple are so grateful for the warm and generous messages they have received during such a happy time in their lives. As a way to say thank you, they have decided to share this candid photograph from the day of their portrait sittings directly with all of you.”

About the photographer:

“The photographs were taken this week by Polish photographer Alexi Lubomirski, known for his work in fashion and celebrity and formally known as His Serene Highness Prince Alexi Lubomirski after inheriting a title from his father.

“Lubomirski said: ‘It was an incredible honour to be asked to document this wonderful event, but also a great privilege to be invited to share and be a witness to this young couple’s love for one another. I cannot help but smile when I look at the photos that we took of them, such was their happiness together. A huge thank you to His Royal Highness Prince Harry and Ms Markle, for allowing me to take their official engagement portraits.’ […]

“Born in England, he moved to Botswana at the age of eight. […] The Prince and Ms Markle personally chose Lubomirski to take their official engagement photographs, having admired his previous work.”


For two of the photos, Meghan wore a Ralph & Russo Couture Autumn/Winter 2016/2017 gown, which is described as a “Black tulle gown with silk organza skirt, hand appliquéd with silk tulle ruffles and embroidered with gold feather thread-work.” There is no price on the designer’s website, but the Daily Mail says the gown “is estimated to cost £56,000.” The DM is also reporting that “Kensington Palace confirmed the gown was ‘privately purchased’.”

Photos: Alexi Lubomirski / Ralph & Russo



  1. I appreciate how wonderful your blogs are and I’ll be still reading KMR but I am unfollowing here. I just can’t stomach Meghan and this $56,000.00 dress is just the last straw. This is an embarrassing mess for the RF and Harry should be ashamed of himself for tarnishing the image of that family.

    1. You think this dress is what’s going to tarnish the image of that family? HAAAAAAAAA.

      It’s not a great look (literally and figuratively), but an embarrassing mess to the royal family seems like a bit of a stretch.

      1. If the DoC had worn such an over the top dress, some people on this site would have been over her like a bad rash. The same people that see nothing wrong wearing an almost $ 60.000 evening dress when a lot of people in the UK are not well off and lots of older people don’t have money for heating. As a self styled humanitarian this is tone deaf and totally inappropriate. I’m actually lost for words that anyone could think this is an acceptable choice. This looks like Hollywood meets Russian oligarch and certainly appeals to people who are in to this superficial tripe. This girl is in love with the status she will get. Say what you want about Kate Middleton. She chose to spend x-mas with her family, this one can’t get far and fast enough away form family and friends. This will be Fergie 2.0 in a few years.

        1. Meghan spent time with her mom in LA a few weeks ago. She has a strong friend network. She is not running from her family or friends. And as far as Kate, we don’t know if she was or was not invited to spend Xmas when she was engaged.

          I do not feel Meghan is in love with the status she will get and she is not Fergie 2.0. Two different women with two different men, different times. You can’t compare them.

          1. CHANELCHEN, you said everything what I think. Many people bash Kate for the price of her clothes but for Meghan to wear such an ridiculously expensive dress is OK. It doesn’t matter if Meghan has her own money this dress is totally inappropriate for a woman who is as a “humanitarian”. The image Meghan is showing is the one of a woman with luxury taste and as is said “past behavior is indicative of future behavior”. This is NOT a matter of liking Meghan or not, it’s a matter of what type of image Harry and Meghan want to show to the world.

        2. My understanding is Kate was invited but William worked the holiday so she chose to stay with family instead of going to the Royals celebration without him. And as Leah pointed out, Meghan recently spent time with her mother and by all appearances is close to her.

          Regarding the dress, I do think there’s a cultural clash going on and Harry didn’t serve Meghan well if he didn’t warn her how the dress would be perceived. A $60K evening dress is not out of line for a US first lady (both Michelle Obama and Melania Trump have worn dresses that cost twice that much) and it would be a standard price range for a dress for a high profile woman in the entertainment industry. So Meghan may not have understood that Royals wearing clothes that expensive is just not done and makes her look a bit Marie Antoinette-ish. She seems very sharp, so hopefully she’ll learn quickly and roll with the punches.

          1. I’m sorry to burst your bubble, Leah, but Kate Middleton declined to spend x-mas with the Royals and opted to spent the last Christmas as a commoner with her family. As far as I know Ms. Markle went straight from Toronto to London where she has been staying. She has been spotted around Windsor. I suppose she’ll try to get Frogmore House as a residence since she loves impressive Windsor soo much. . Apartment 1 A was snatched from the Royal Collection Trust. When it comes to the dress, I remember Michelle Obama getting quite some flag for expensive evening dresses. And that’s the point. It is an evening dress, worn in a park in December during the day for an engagement photo. It basically screams look at me! I made it and can wear a dress like that. One has to understand that nobility is more for understatement. But I’m sure she made lots of fans who are gullible brand worshipers and anything “BLING” as Prince Charles like to call it.

          2. I’m glad Meghan is spending Christmas with her fiancee; they have spent enough time apart.

            Umm but Michelle Obama has never been photographed in a dress valued at $120,000; $12,000 yes but not $120,000. Huge difference.

          3. Michelle Obama wore in Alexander McQueen couture gown to a state dinner. I can’t find the cost of that dress but while Googling I discovered that Kate Middleton’s custom Alexander McQueen wedding dress cost £250,000, at least according to Marie Claire magazine.

          4. Thank you, Jamel. I think a lot of people will have a rude awakening. This girl is more about image and getting ahead in life than anything else. These pics are just totally inappropriate, no matter who paid for that $75.000 dress.

          5. @Gatita

            So you made up a number because Kate’s wedding dress was very expensive. Every dress by McQueen isn’t worth 250,000 pounds.

        3. I think it depends, Meghan has been steadily working and she could have well bought her own dress in anticipation of this photo shoot. Why do you want people to bash Meghan who, it can be argued that she, is spending her hard earned pay? If Kate is extravagant while she has no money of her own and is perceived as extravagantly spending the tax payers money, that’s on her! When Meghan settles in the BRF and continuously does what Kate is doing and people don’t complain then, lets talk. But until then, well its her money, she can spend it as she pleases, she worked hard for and earned it!!
          I’m thinking that this dress was a loan or something, Meghan has been in Hollywood long enough to know better. Those Hollywood starts load and rent clothes and jewellery like there’s no tomorrow. This could be one of these cases. Or it could be that the designer gave it to them on a discount in exchange for Meghan promoting their gown, it happens all the time.

        4. Well, step up to start slinging nastiness, by all means. My God, they’re not kidnapping Meghan and forbidding her to see her family. The days of in-laws being shut out are over and for Pete’s sake, normal people don’t even spend holidays with their families every year. I can’t remember the last time I spent Christmas (or any holiday at all) with my family of origin (or my in-laws) because my husband spent his life in the military and we couldn’t just afford to fly a family of 7 anywhere. So, we stayed home with the family we made out of friends. Are we running away from friends and family, too? Get a grip. Nice to see the trolls have found their way back to annoy the crap out of everyone with their overblown attacks on Meghan.

          1. I think we had already had that discount discussion on Kate Middleton Review. The Royal Family are not the Kardashians, although might slowly turn into them. They are not supposed to get discount to promote certain articles. They get quite a lot of money from their crown estates and the tax payer and they are supposed to do their bit for it. I know that social media turns this whole thing into an absolute circus, but Miss Markle is not walking-talking ad for high end designers. While she certainly made some money while working on Suits, a show not a lot of people had heard of before, I doubt that she was paid so much money that $ 60.000 or $ 70.000 for a dress is her average go to. It’s just totally over the top and I’m sure they will be told off for that and such a mishap won’t happen again.

          2. They get discounts. Their Land Rovers are all discounted. They can’t get anything for FREE. Carole and Pippa have always circumvented that by accepting free gifts and then giving them to Kate. Meghan is not yet a royal and can still do whatever she wants. That dress also didn’t cost her or anyone else $70,000. It’s not from this season and no celebrity pays full price. It could’ve been mostly given to her for exposure. Either way, she earned her own money and can buy that dress if she wants it. She will continue to bring in money from royalties on Suits and anything else she may have filmed. Until she’s official I’m not going to question her clothing choices because whatever is being paid comes out of her own pocket.

          3. Yea I think the dress is tacky and ugly but if Meghan spent her own money on this dress, then let her. So far, I’ll say Meghan doesn’t seem to have an understated, tasteful evening style or even dress style- but she’ll figure it out once she’s a royal, hopefully. Also, she isn’t officially a royal yet, so let’s jusge her work vis a vis her spending once she’s been in this capacity for a few years.

        5. Jamel,
          If she bought it with her money, we have no grounds to tell her how to spend HER money. The reason Kate gets such flack is because she is spending someone else’s money so people feel like since they contribute to some of the money she spends they have some grounds to tell her how to spend THEIR money. That is the difference. Anyone carrying on and on and on non stop with the narrative about Meghan wearing such an expensive item that she bought with HER money is just being ridiculous.

      2. @ChanelChen,
        I’m not sure if you know this but prime time here in north America for a show like suits and an actress like Meghan is in the range of 50-100k per episode. I repeat, that’s per episode. There are shows like 21/2 men where actors would earn in 100s of 1000s of $/episode. Meghan CAN actually easily afford a dress like that.
        IRT the royal family, who are you to dictate how they should live their lives, they aren’t dictating yrs. I’m sorry but some British posters on these are way too OTT with their grandiose claims of how their taxes are sustaining the BRF and so they should have a say in how they should live their lives. Y’all need to have yr governments account for how they spend yr taxes so you can have a good understanding of that. My guess is you’d be surprised at how little of yr taxes go to the BRF.

        1. Masamf: at conservative estimate, the BRF is funded from our taxes to the tune of £340M per year. That is based on the publicly available information. And that excludes the income they derive from the state owned duchies in their care.

          To compare, if UKIP were telling the truth, our NHS requires an additional £350M per year extra funding to function properly. Right now it’s very underfunded.

          Imagine if the £340M we give to the royals went to the NHS.

          1. Herazeus, you made me laugh out loud with your post😅😅😅😅😆. I do understand that we contribute that much, and by we I mean me included since I’m in the commonwealth and HM is my head of state. Collectively, it’s a huge chunk of money but individually? Not so much. Our tax dollars do other things other than go to the monarchy, so what we each contribute to the monarchy if really broken down wouldn’t be that much. I’m more upset with my government deducting employment insurance from my wages, on a weekly basis, in the guise of keeping it for me for when I ever get laid off or something. When I got laid off, I had to jump through heck and fire to get them to pay me 1200/month, they found all sorts of excuses to NOT pay me the money they take from my pay check every week, money they had been deducting for 15 years. Year after year, I pay EI that I will never claim or get back and I have no idea where that money goes, may be that’s what some unemployed person on welfare gets every month? I don’t know. That is the kind of deductions that bother me the most, and I would be so upset if a person on welfare went on vacation while I have never been on any vacation in my entire life. But something that Meghan bought with her own money? She can do whatever she wants with her money, I’m not losing any sleep over how she spends her money.

          2. MASAMF, I actually don’t care how much money she made per episode and whether she paid for it in part,full or not at all. If you think that wearing such an over the top dress is fine, more power to you. Such attire might appeal to certain people who go completely dotty about it on social media and who think that Hollywood style is the way to go and superficiality is en vogue, but it won’t charm the average Brit or peerage. This is not a woman who cares about the empowerment of women or deprived children in third world countries but a woman who wants to show the world that she has made it and she can afford it. In short she wants to show off.

          3. @Masamf
            Only UK citizens pay for the BRF, not citizens from Commonwealth countries. The only exception is when the BRF visits a country and expenses are paid by the host country. The last Canadian tour of William, Kate and family cost Canadians a couple of million dollars. No doubt someone will have the exact figure.

            Herazeus is correct. Britons are told that the BRF costs them only 56 pence each or some such paltry figure, based on the Sovereign Grant only, but neglects to include a raft of other income sources. The £340 m per year is what we know about. Unfortunately the Queen and Charles have stymied any attempts for accountability of public funds by successfully lobbying for the FoI Act NOT to apply to them. Of course UK taxes pay for a number of government functions. Britons would need to decide – had they full information, which they don’t – how they would best like their money spent.

            You can see by a recent YouGov poll that a majority of Britons are indifferent to Harry’s engagement, and do not care that Meghan is divorced, American, bi-racial or an actress. All non-issues except being beaten by a few outlets for obvious reasons. And a 2 to 1 majority thinks Meghan should be working in a real job, not taking on ‘royal duties’, which says more about what Britons think of royal duties than anything else ie not real work and they don’t want to pay for people swanning around doing very little.

          4. “Such attire might appeal to certain people who go completely dotty about it on social media and who think that Hollywood style is the way to go and superficiality is en vogue…”

            Good Lord, so everybody who believes in Meghan is superficial? What a fantastic way to write off those with whom you disagree. *Rolls eyes*

        2. ‘At ChanelChen, you seem to think that your dislike for Meghan and yr hateful feelings towards anything Meghan is generalize to the entire population and therefore seem to think you can speak for everyone.. 🙄🙄🙄, At this point, what you care about and what you don’t care about doesn’t matter, at the end of the day it’s not yr money that Megha spent and neither are you marrying Harry. You can tie yrself into a thousand knots all you want and spew all the vitriol about whoever like Meghan and thinks highly of her, it doesn’t matter, Meghan doesn’t know you and you don’t know her. It doesn’t matter if you get on rooftops and scream yr lungs open about what Meghan is or isn’t, it still remains that you don’t know her and are therefore spewing bull crap about nothing. Both Meghan and Harry care nada about what you think is about them or what you think it is that’s appropriate or otherwise. At the end of the day Meghan is just gonna live her life with her prince and the rest of the haters are just gonna eat their hearts out😝😝😝😝😝😝.
          @Jen, whatever it is that the commonwealth spends on the BRF is still our tax dollars. However with all that being said, we all contribute pretty tiny amounts of money for people to continuously whine about our money this and our money that. And certainly, Meghan did not spend yr money, she spent her money. If anyone doesn’t like what she bought with her money and feels it’s inappropriate, tough luck, she made the decision to spend her money that way and that’s it.

          1. The BRF should be held to account; it is paid by the public. Anyone in receipt of public monies should be held accountable as how that money has been spent. That’s not being petty. It’s a series of checks and balances in place as a means to avoid corruption utilised in every responsible government across the globe.

            No-one knows who paid for the damn dress. KP was asked numerous times about the price tag/who paid and chose not to comment (Source: Richard Palmer). As people have been at pains to point out here, it wouldn’t matter who in the BRF wore the gown or what deals were done. The optics are poor in a country where people are on their knees financially, people die because they can’t afford to heat their homes, there has been an increase in homelessness over the past six years, there have been massive cuts to the National Health Service, suicides through the desperation of poverty are up, and on it goes. That’s the context.

          2. @MASAMF I don’t feel hatred towards Ms. Markle and I actually hope that she and Prince and Harry will be happy. I’ve just stated my opinion about her poor choice when it comes to this dress, the way it reflects badly on her “causes” and this whole photo session was more Vogue than Royal Family. I’m very sorry that you obviously haven’t been taught that criticism doesn’t equal hatred and that the usage of emoji is not intellectually conducive to making a serious argument. I do get it that there are obviously a lot of impressionable young girls that seem to basically worship the ground this woman walks on.

    2. First of all that is the value of the dress. It is from the 2016/2017 season which is an old season. I guarantee that was not they paid. It is wonderful publicity.

      Tarnishing the family is bit dramatic would you say. I think she is fabulous.

  2. Well done Meghan for buying your own outfit. I think she looks lovely but even if you don’t, the fact that it was her choice and she paid must surely make it ok? Of course they are staged but I still think the genuine love shines through. I really hope they remain happy and she copes with the pressure and the unfortunate racist undertones being expressed. I hope someone gave PM of K a good talking to. To me she makes Harry happy, he just looks so much more relaxed, and that benefits the BRF enormously. Can’t wait for the wedding.

    1. Well we don’t actually know who bought the dress. just that Charles won’t be getting a tax write off for it.
      “Private funds” doesn’t have to mean Meghan

      1. Charles won’t be paying for anything of hers until after they’re married. That’s how it works. She’s not officially a member of The Firm yet so he doesn’t buy any of her stuff. Kate had to fork out for her own clothes until after the marriage, too. Well, Uncle Gary’s money was forked out but I digress.

      2. I get the feeling that it was likely purchased, but at a very reduced price, or even just a ceremonial $1.00. This kind of exposure is priceless, plus probably bumps them up the potential wedding dress designer list.

        1. And of course they may also be designing a wedding gown for her….so this may have been a trial. These beautiful photos will be seen around the world, giving the brand exposure that no money can buy.

          Aside from arguments on the cost of the gown, I like the fact that Meghan is wearing what she likes and is not becoming boring.

        2. So basically y’all think that it’s okay for a future British royal to be a walking ad for a designer and get kickbacks in exchange (discounts/free), just like a celebrity. All for the sake of an obscenely expensive dress that no one needs that much and makes Meghan look profligate.

          1. I’m not a Brit and I have no real opinion on the Monarchy aside from looking at photos and reading gossip. I don’t know what their role is in British society, why the Monarchy still exists, expectations with regards to their behavior and so on. Based on what I’ve read I don’t think there’s a consensus within the UK on any of that either. There seems to be a core of royalists who are invested in the institution (most of them older), a group of republicans who want to do away with the whole thing (mostly Labour) and then the majority who don’t care one way or the other.

            Meghan is coming from a celebrity career that put her in the spotlight with certain norms (borrowing expensive clothes) and expectations (being camera ready at all times, being accessible to the media). Some of her career skills are transferable to her new role and some of them seem like they will get in the way. It doesn’t seem like she’s getting a lot of guidance or the right guidance within the Royal inner circle and she’s going to have to blunder through making mistakes until she figures it out, which is terrible for her and for the institution.

            All of this is to say I’m not clutching my pearls over Meghan behaving like a celebrity because that’s been her career and training. It doesn’t mean she’s immoral or awful or disrespectful of the institution she’s joining, just that she’s transitioning and learning.

            Also, it seems like expectations of the Royals are not fixed in stone and depend on the observer and where they stand so that adds a level of difficulty for Meghan in figuring it all out. Then there’s the classism and racism to deal with as well. Plus she’s only been engaged a few weeks. Give her some time. She seems very sharp so I think she will learn the ropes.

          2. Gatita,

            “All of this is to say I’m not clutching my pearls over Meghan behaving like a celebrity because that’s been her career and training. It doesn’t mean she’s immoral or awful …”

            No one is clutching their pearls. No one is asserting that she is immoral or awful. Profligate, perhaps, but not immoral or awful. Where are you getting this from?

            Regardless of all the factors you cited which may or may not be a hassle and may or not be that complicated ( I don’t think they are), the fact is she needs to get savvy and get a clue. When one enters and will embrace another culture, it’s best to immediately study up on it and its expectations. Harry is useless. So who is going to step up to help her? And what is she doing to make it better?

            Fact is, Meghan made a major faux pas. That’s what everyone is discussing, not all that other faux outrage meant to distract from the reality. It happens.

  3. I love the pictures. Yes they all have their talking points but essentially they show two totally in love people. And the use of Frogmore is so beautiful. The black and white photo where Harry snuggles Meghan into his coat is just so dreamy. If this dress has been privately purchases as rumoured I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s been purchased by a Royal Family historical trust as a future museum piece. And I’m certain that as 2016 catwalk piece combined with the fact that it’s given Ralph & Russo publicity they couldn’t buy the price was nothing even close to £56 000

    But I have had Ralph & Russo as well as Elie Saab & Zuhair Murad on my watch list of potential Royal Wedding dress designers. They are very international choices.

    1. Just checked out the Ralph & Russo website and I have a feeling this will be Meghan’s choice for a wedding gown designer.

      1. I am literally praying every night Ralph and Russo is the choice for the wedding dress. I have been right so far about them so lets just bring it on home lol

  4. Wow, these photos are really breathtaking, I am so in love with them and I am so looking forward to this wedding. I think we will get great emotions.They have a great chemistry and it shows. Both look fantastic and I love the dress she is wearing albeit it is brave to wear such expensive clothes.

  5. What can I say? I like the photos, I like Meghan’s dress, I think Harry looks the best he ever has, and it’s quite obvious they are in love.

    I really hate the “show off the ring” pose, but that seems par for the course for engagement photos.

    Oh, I should add that I like the Lubomirski style loads better than Annie Lebovitz or Mario Testino.

  6. These photos could not be more magical! Of course they’re very posed, given the occasion, but they’re still so real, with the way their happiness shines through! They definitely picked the right photographer. And Meghan wears that dress light years better than the runway model, so she just did Ralph & Russo and incredible favor.

    1. I think Meghan’s ring is not so ostentatious relative to other rings, for example, Pippa’s gigantic ring. But to each couple, taste and style are unique. I love the understated look of Meghan’s ring. Just the right amount of bling, and it’s fine and expected to see it in an engagement photo. In other recent photos, I don’t see her purposely flashing it to say “look at me, I’m marrying a prince!”

  7. Her dress is bold, and I love that. And you can’t not see their happiness – it practically leaps from the still pages!

    But I’d have liked to see Harry match his fiancée in the formality of their attire. She is radiant in couture, whilst he is donning…. his typical cobalt blue suit (fitted this time however, a nod to the small improvements). It is glaring how mismatched they are. I am spinning just imagining how smart and WONDERFUL this would have looked with Harry in a black tuxedo. Perhaps even a top hat? That would have been too adorable. As it is… black and gold next to shiny blue.

    Personally, I’d love to see both Harry and William chuck their blue suit collections in the bin. But that is my personal taste.

    1. I agree. I personally don’t like the dress but it is bold. Harry looks too casual next to her with that blue suit. He needed something like for a black tie event.

      The pictures are lovely though.

  8. They are such loving, happy photos. Their chemisty and love shines and I have never seen Harry so happy. These are much better than the stiff engagement pics Kate and William did.

    I would love to see Harry and Meghan get Frogmore as their country home-perhaps that is why the shoot was there?

      1. One nasty royal reporter said on Twitter that Frogmore is where Harry introduced Chelsy to the Queen. Was that really necessary?

        1. Well it’s factually true. Maybe not tactful but it was where HMTQ was formally introduced to Chelsey at Peter & Autumn’s wedding. They had their wedding reception there which is why H & M were looking at it as a possible venue……apparently.

        2. @Leah my friend, don’t let this bother you, I don’t think Meg is letting things like these get to her. If she is, then this will be one short lived relationship. Harry is 33 yentas old, he is a prince and is not a virgin. What I mean is Meghan is gonna go lots of places where Harry took his exes, but that’s no big deal, of all the women he introduced to HM, he chose Meghan to be his wife, that should be the focus of things. Likewise, Meghan is 36 and she is not a virgin. Im sure she slept with some guy in her bed in her apartment in Toronto (I don’t mean to be gross folks just trying to drive a point home). In the same house and same bed, prince Harry spent many a night and did not care whether some other man had been in the same bed, what mattered to him is that this woman had chosen him to be her lawful husband, the rest is just noise. What Im saying is these are 2 adults who both have exes, they understand that. I believe Meghan already knows that Harry took this or that woman to this or that same place he is taking her, but she doesn’t care, she has and is engaged to the prince and the rest are exes, nuff said.

    1. I don’t think there’s any reason to compare the two engagement photos… but, with that said, I think K/W’s are actually very un-stiff compared to how most of their portraits have been since… for them, I think they were relatively touchy and lovey too (but they seem to be generally less that type of person than Meg and Harry)

      1. Yes I agree I saw side by side comparisons of the engagement photos and while the one standing was a bit stiff, the more casual one was affectionate. Quite a contrast to the recent “Christmas” photo.

        1. I think the WK engagement photo just happened to be taken when all Kate could think about was landing the ring and not realizing she’d be expect to, yanno, do stuff that comes with her new title. We’ll see how Meghan fares soon enough. I’m optimistic but not stupid.

    2. I agree about Harry’s suit and those casual blue suede shoes, that William and Harry prefer. I don’t think Harry needs to wear a tux. But a formal muted black/grey/golden textured suit and a pair of formal shoes, typically paired with such a suit, would have looked lovely. Beautiful scenery and Meghan’s dress is well-suited for this background. The dress combines a romantic yet modern look with a formal, classic and a bit whimsical vibe. If that makes sense!

  9. What I like best about Harry and Meghan’s engagement photos is that they show a happy and in-love couple.

    The black and white photo with Meghan in the white top is my favorite by default, my favorite aspect is Meghan being enfolded in Harry’s jacket. My gut reaction is that the photo seems too lovey-dovey for an official photo of a royal couple, I don’t specifically recall but I probably had a similar reaction to the engagement photo of William and Kate where he has her in a tight hug. I am willing to ding myself for being an old fogey about the photo rather than trying to assert that this younger generation of royals should have more decorum.

    The color photo gets a thumbs down. It would get a thumbs up if Harry was dressed more formally or Meghan dressed more casually.

    Meghan’s dress is nice in and of itself but too Hollywood glam for a royal portrait IMO. I have a pretty high threshold for glamour including what many refer to as “ice skater” dresses but I can see Meghan’s dress not going over well with many for various reasons like its Hollywood-ness, the price tag, sheer elements, etc.

    The other black and white photo is cute but the black and white does not camouflage the mismatched-ness of that Harry is wearing versus what Meghan is wearing.

    1. Sit by me, AAA, another old fogey. More decorum makes for official portraits, not happy snaps. I personally find the photos on the side of sappy/sentimental/cheesy, something one would find on Instagram launched by thousands of starry-eyed fiancees. I do think that emotionally this is their style- a bit on the puerile side.

  10. I’m glad MM looks glamorous. If a “princess” cannot wear a glamorous gown than who can?

    If these royal families are going to exist something about them must be aspirational.

    I always feel like Kate Middleton looks average (wearing boring coat dresses and plain suits with no accessories) on an astronomical budget. If they are going to spend these sums on their clothing I want to see something interesting and suited to a beautiful young woman.

    1. Well said- I really think it’s right for the occasion because it’s princess-y and romantic ( but without being too girlish). I would have been disappointed if she’d worn a suit.

      1. Exactly! When I see royals, I want to see magic, glamour. I don’t want to see the girl next door. Royals are supposed to be extra. I wanna see jewels, tiaras, glamour, gowns! Pizzazz!

        1. I want to see them, too, but I want to see them justified by hard work. That’s not a dig at H&M. It’s more directed at W&K but also sometimes others who don’t justify the money spent on them. If Kate started parading around regularly in couture I’d want to say, “Girl, get to work first.”

  11. I’m obsessed with these photos. They belong in a Vogue spread. I know some people think it’s too dressy but she’s a future duchess and princess of the United Kingdom. Why not go all out? I certainly would. This photos make me excited to see her wedding gown. I thought her fashion was safe and sophiscated at first, but now I’m excited to see her fashion for every event she does.

      1. She looks sartorially disjointed from Harry. But the b&w photo is perfect. It looks like she is wearing a sweater, nothing too fancy, and she is snuggled up with the man she loves.

  12. So I guess we’re sorted. Those who like the staid and traditional Cambridges will be at KMR. Those who like the fresh and bold approach of H&M will be here.

    I think Meghan is really injecting the BRF with new life, energy and excitement.

      1. +2!! I’m a JCrew girl all the way in my own personal style but admire those who can pull off more interesting designers. I tried ripped jeans and felt like an imposter!

  13. They look to be very much in love, but the outfits are a mismatch. It’s as though he came home from work just as she was getting ready to out to a red carpet event and they only had time for a quickie before the photographer showed up.

    And 56,000 pounds! I hope DM is wrong. She’ll make Kate look thrifty in comparison.

    1. She has her own money to spend on clothes so why not? Kate could never say that. It was never her money even before she married. And I highly doubt Meghan actually paid that much for the dress. She likely got a very steep discount or borrowed it for the shoot.

      1. @Meghan I’m leaning more towards loaned the dress, that girl is got a good head on those shoulders. Them Hollywood some loan expensive dresses and jewellery all the time. You’ll see them id diamonds worth millions of dollars, you think they buy those diamonds? Hell no, they loan them for a few thousand bucks and take em back when done with them!

        1. Yep. Those sparklers are always loans and it’s public knowledge. Exposure for the brand. Same with those fancy awards show dresses.

  14. They look very happy and good for them. Lovely to see a couple embark upon this step. I see the DM is pointing to the extravagance of the gown, they’re probably just one article away from lauding Kate’s engagement in high street Reiss as frugality in comparison. Kate’s spending has only skyrocketed in the years since. At least Meghan is starting out where she intends to remain I guess. She purchased this dress apparently but with the wealth she’s about to step into, it hardly matters. I do however, think she will be good at dressing for the occassion.

    1. £56,000!!! Holy carp! Did Jesus make that dress out of platinum and unicorn hair? What makes it worth that much? That is more than the average family brings home in a year. I don’t care who paid for it, i think it sends a bad message to wear something so expensive.

      1. I don’t think it was a wise choice per se, but Ralph and Russo is the definition of quality couture and a great example of British design and couture. Their dresses are expensive because everything is done by done hand in the UK.

        With that being said, this is a couple of seasons old so I would guess she got both a “good PR” discount and that it was already further discounted because it wasn’t from a current season.

        Also, why not go all out for your engagement photos that will enter into the history books? I would lol.

        1. Is this photo really going to enter the history books, though? Meghan is marrying a younger brother. It’s news now, but the two of them are going to be side acts to William and Kate, and will become less and less important as the years go by.

          1. It is a part of the archive. How important the picture will be depends on how the lives of William and Harry unfold. Tangentially, there is a snapshot of clothing style at this point in time, so a minor supporting role to the archive right now.

  15. I think these are great pics and they both look great but I like the black and white one best.
    The other doesn’t work for me since she’s in a $75,000 ball gown and he’s in his every day blue suit.

  16. Meghan should have given this money to organisations that really need money.
    She always pretented to care so much, so I’m disappointed that she sees it necessary to buy something with such an obscene costs just for herself.
    She should know better.

    The pictures are beautiful and I hope Harry will be happy, but I’m disappointed in Meghan.And the worst is, she will not care what the public says, she is no Kate.

    1. If we go by that logic, both Meghan and Kate should take their cloth budget and donate it then. on the other hand, I can not imagine myself spending that kind of money on a dress, even if I had that kind of money.. gulp… I couldn’t, I just couldn’t. Perhaps I am just jealous or cheap? But I am happy for both of them, in general its nice to celebrate people so in love.

    2. The cost objection can apply to pretty much anything and everything that all the royals wear, so I don’t know why it’s necessary to single out Meghan on this occasion. But I can’t argue the point that couture clothing is always an eye-popping extravagance.

      1. The Queen, Camilla and the men wear bespoke clothes, so we never the cost. I’m sure if we did, we would collectively pass out from shock. The trouble is, we know the cost of this dress, the rediculous cost, and it makes a bad first impression.

          1. Expanding on Jet’s comment— a dress that’s not off the rack and so the true price is never known, though if one knows the price of that designer’s clothing in general one can surmise. It allows them to skate under the radar a bit more though. Kate has had a few gowns that are like this.

        1. I follow a Hollywood fashion blog so the cost of the dress didn’t faze me and I’m surprised by the blowback. I think someone should’ve warned Meghan how it would be perceived before she made such a visible misstep.

      2. Yeah, welcome to Kate’s world. I certainly am not shedding tears over Kate getting criticized for her spending but Kate, and now Meghan, are easy targets because we can kinda-sorta guess how much what they wear is worth. The same cannot be done with the Queen and Camilla because they don’t wear items that are featured on runways, catalogs and lookbooks, and in the Queen’s case she has an in-house designer who has a grace-and-favour home.

        Having said that, I think that procuring the Ralph & Russo dress for the engagement shoot was a big mis-step.

    3. I’m very disapointed with this dress too. She Said that wants to work with desadvantages women and small organisations.Very expensive wardrobe don’t combine with this type of charitable work. I remember one day when Kate paid a visite to a primary school in a poor comunity wering a £1.500 Erden dress and how ir causes a stir.

    4. Do you ever splurge on anything? I know I do. Not to the tune of 56k but I am also not an independently wealthy lady like Meghan. But anything anyone splurges on can go to charity. How do we know Meghan hasn’t donated three times this amount to charity? After all, if she were to make it known publicly people would accuse her of being pr hungry.

    5. Why, does wearing expensive things means that person don’t give nothing to charity? Maybe she DOES give to charity and DID buy this dress too!! You know both are possible, right?

        1. There is a huge difference between living as a pauper and wearing a $75,000 dress. Another example of where I don’t understand why these people in a precarious institution (BRF) can be so tone deaf. They have professional p.r. flacks who have full time jobs as image makers/protectors. Even without them, Meghan should have known better—

  17. I love how happy Meghan and Harry look in these pictures. That’s very nice to see.

    Having said that, I can’t help but feel that if Kate wore a $70,000 sheer gown she would be crucified for it. I honestly believe that if Kate showed up to an event wearing this same exact dress people would not be saying how fresh and bold it is, they would say she was being inappropriate and extravagant. Just IMO.

    1. I love Meghan in this, but I think you’re totally right that this is not a “Kate” dress. Although, thinking about it, Kate has worn a couple of pretty daring things that went well – she wore a sheer ice-blue gown to the James Bond premiere that was fairly edgy. And the blush gown she wore the the Spain state dinner earlier this year was very sheer and low-cut.

      1. Agreed Cookie! There are so many Meghan sugars on here with rose coloured glasses, but they will bash Kate no matter what she does. I like Meghan but I will not gush over her until she proves herself worthy of being a princess.

        1. Is anyone asking how much Harry’s suit costs? I wonder why.
          And how exactly does someone “prove” themselves worthy of being a princess? I wonder if Meghan was a typical English rose if there would be all this uproar. And again, why is no one asking how much Harry’s suit cost?

          1. Harry’s suit will be worn multiple times, if it hasn’t been already. We’ll have to wait and see if Meghan ever wears this dress again. I’m hoping that the expense of this dress is an aberration on her part and that it won’t become the norm from here on out.

        2. That’s fair enough, RT. And I know that there is an imbalance between the comments that Kate gets vs Meghan. I have been guilty of this myself at times.

          But I also do know that Meghan was a star on a fairly successful television programme; through this she has amassed at least multiple millions. And now that she has effectively retired from the show, I expect that she is earning royalties. For this reason, I am prepared to believe that she purchased this gown on her own and will give her a pass for extravagant spending when it is clear that the finances are not coming from tax payers.

          Once she is married, she will officially be a public servant. In this capacity, she is less likely to be forgiven for such a high priced item.

          If she can pay for it herself, and she wants it, I say why not? The effect is beautiful.

          1. Leah why do you think this has to do with race? Stop playing that card. One proves themselves being worthy of being a princess by their commitment to their royal duty. I don’t care what Meghan’s ethnic background is, I just care how she represents herself under the umbrella of the BRF. I’m rooting for Meghan and hope she goes on to do great things!

      2. Kate trotted down the runway in her undies to get Will’s attention and still became the future queen consort. Compare apples to apples if you’re gonna compare at all.

        1. At first I thought you meant Kate was chasing William down an airport runway in her underwear. Maybe chasing his plane as it was taking off. I was about to ask “when did this happen!?” when I realized my error. Funny mental picture though. 🙂

          1. Well, she’s shown her undies (or lack thereof) on the tarmac before so close enough! 😉

            No, the university fashion show with the sheer skirt-dress thing is what I was referring to.

    2. I think when Kate first sported the Cartier trinity necklace there was a lot I grief so they issued a statement saying the same thing, “purchased with private funds”
      That James Bond premier dress was a disaster on many levels for Kate

      1. Was it? I liked it a lot, but I did notice it had a bit of a dressing gown vibe – I’m guessing that’s why it didn’t go over well with everyone?

        1. It was too big on top and ill fitting. Also looked like a dressing gown.
          Kate seems to like pale blue gown but she always looks better in jewel tones. It was just a big no for me.
          Cookie I agree if Kate wore something like this, especially cost wise, there would be an out cry. Although the media acts like everything Kate wears is fabulous when it’s not. That’s why the jewelry statement stuck out to me. I think it’s one of the few times they actually put out a statement about it being privately purchased. I don’t think they had done that before

      2. And then there was that garnet jewelry Kate wore to a premiere in either winter of 2011 or early 2012 and the public were told it was a private gift.

        Unless I am mistaken, Kate has not worn that jewelry since.

    3. I don’t personally have a problem with the dress. I am just pointing out that people do not treat Kate and Meghan equally. Looking at that last picture of the model on the runway I try to imagine Kate photoshopped in. If I imagine Kate wearing this dress to the royal variety performance, for example, I can try to predit what comments would be made about her.
      “How inappropriate that she is strutting around in a sheer dress just like she did back in Saint Andrews! She is such an exhibitionist.”
      “Look at Kate, always needing to be the center of attention. How utterly tone deaf to wear a $70,000 dress when tax payers are struggling to make ends meet.”

      I’m just saying that lately it seems like everything Kate does is wrong and everything Meghan does is perfect and without fault. I think in the interest of fairness I would like to say that a less expensive gown may have been more appropriate. It doesn’t matter whether Meghan paid for it herself. It is important that she be a bit more modest in what she wears now (price wise) because as someone else said on this thread this makes a bad impression.

      And I might also suggest that this dress is a bit too dressy for engagement pictures especially since Harry is just in a morning suit. This dress is very expensive couture. Perhaps a simpler cocktail dress may have been more appropriate. This photographer is known for doing magazine photo shoots of actors and that’s exactly what this looks like to me. It looks more like a fashion magazine photo shoot than engagement pictures and that may be because that’s what Meghan is used to.

      1. Why do we need to treat them equally? Kate has been married for almost 7 years. When did Kate have her “wow” fashion moment?

        I believe this dress could be one of Meghan’s iconic looks. Diana had so many…Kate can’t think of one.

        1. Kate’s fashion sense has been in the crapper from day one. Her having an iconic fashion moment is unfathomable at this point. And if Meghan is smart, she could auction the dress off later for charity. I think it is smart idea.

        2. Kate has also never had her own money. Meghan earned all of hers and can spend it however she wants until she’s under the restrictions of the RF. And I don’t believe for one second she paid much of anything for it. As I mentioned in my post below she probably had designers at her feet with racks of dresses to try on. The exposure they get from being worn by the current It Girl is worth the freebie. She can still accept freebies until May 19th. Everything Kate touches turns to sold (which I don’t understand with a lot of this stuff, but I would have happily bought some of her pre-George items) and I’m sure these companies are looking for the same Midas touch with Meghan. Like it or not young royals are celebrities now.

      2. +1
        I would have commented along those lines (as soon as I would have reached the end).

        Does she look gorgeous? Is it a beautiful dress? Do they look happy and in love? Yes.
        But they also look like a Hollywood couple. But they are not. The young Royals (H&M, the Camby, York girls…) have to understand that, if they want to hold onto their titles and to maintain the British monarchy.
        The communicated price, the sheer material and the poses are fine for a-z celebrities (or any private person that can afford it) but not for full-time royals. Period.

        1. Why, why is looking like a celebrity such a sin? Why would the young royals “lose their titles” because they look like “celebrities”? The days of “the cold distant BRF with a stiff upper lip” are long past. The BRF seems to get it that we now live in the 21st century and they’re progressively moving in that direction too. There are people that don’t want to see any changes in the BRF , but those will be left behind as the royal family moves ahead without them. For those of us that don’t care one way or another it will be chugga, chugga, chugga, chugga, choo, choo🚃🚃🚃🚃🚋

          1. Masamf: because they are not celebrities.

            They are public servants.

            Think how much sh!t Ivanka Trump gets for her clothing choices. She looks like she’s going to a hollywood cocktail party instead of the serious business of the white house #whateveritisshethinkssheisdoingthere!

            Fundamental misunderstanding of what the royal family are. Celebrity is a happenstance, NOT the point of them.

            Why should we pay for them to be celebrities? If that is their role then we get rid of them because we have enough celebrities thank you very much. Moreover ones that make their own way.

      1. I believe her stylist picked up the dress. The stylist is usually paid by the designer to get high profile celebrities to wear their dresses. That is how it works. Do,you think any actresses pays for their Oscar dresses?

        I am 99%positive she nor the RF paid for that dress. The exposure the designer received is priceless.

        I also read when Kate got engaged there were tons of boxes being delivered to the Middleton’s. These designers are not stupid.

  18. Those two are so in love, it’s breathtakingly beautiful. Thank you, Harry and Meghan, for these wonderful pictures that light up my dark day. Good news are always the BEST.

  19. I assume that this gown was given to or purchased by Meghan pre-Harry. Maybe as a red carpet gown when she was acting, and she never wore it. That’s just my first thought.
    Beautiful photos! Gorgeous. They look so in love.

    1. I think you may be right, Dayle. As an actress, she would have been offered numerous items without charge simply to be seen in said item. I once wore a dress to a pageant that Selena Gomez had worn to a gala. I have the photos in my collection still.

      I returned the dress at the end of the event, steamed, pressed and all. I never dared ask the purchase price.

  20. They both look happy and beautiful but the dress is a miss and Meghan is clearly stating she has arrived and will be a princess! I don’t think this helps her “Media Meg” tag. She is going to lap up every inch of the attention she gets.

  21. I don’t think Meghan is attention seeking. I think she is used to getting attention because of being an actress-not the same. And I am all for giving her a chance. Yes, maybe she made a misstep with the dress, but I am not going to condemn her for it or write her off.

    1. I agree with you and I think her comfort with the spotlight is a really valuable asset, not a bad thing, considering the job that she’s getting into! It seems like this kind of public role is more stressful for people like Kate who just aren’t as comfortable in the spotlight. I’m not faulting Kate at all, but it just seems like her shy personality makes it harder for her to fully embrace the public side of her role, and that’s why she comes off to people as “work-shy” sometimes.

    2. Meghan looks beautiful in that gorgeous dress, no doubt about it. However, I wouldn’t have gone down that path, regardless of who purchased the dress. The price tag is a red rag to a bull; why go there? In this instance context is all: the price of the dress alone could buy a house/apartment in many areas of the UK. Plus, as many have pointed out, Harry and Meghan’s outfits don’t match – they look as if they are attending two very different events.

      No-one begrudges a couple their moment of happiness, though in their case – and simply because they do/will benefit from public money – they need to be mindful of the messages they transmit, however unwittingly, in a politically charged and socially stressed climate. The images are lovely in some ways, but IMO with over-egged art direction to the point of artifice, and certainly not ‘candid’, as KP claims. I’m clearly not a romantic!!

      One other thing: the KP line of “we’ve decided to share an additional candid image with you” is straight out of the William-Kate playbook of deciding to throw the plebs a bone. Release all images and stop treating people who pay for their lives like doormats.

      1. “…No-one begrudges a couple their moment of happiness, though in their case – and simply because they do/will benefit from public money – they need to be mindful of the messages they transmit, however unwittingly, in a politically charged and socially stressed climate.”

        I couldn’t agree more, Jen. The dress was certainly lovely and Meghan looked even lovelier in it. To be sure, I love the idea of taking engagement photos in this dress! But perhaps they ought to have stressed who paid for it a bit better? Perhaps if the Palace was less ambiguous with a “private funds” comment…?

        I can only hope that tax payers footed 0% of this bill. As of this posting, that is what I am prepared to believe.

        1. “One other thing: the KP line of “we’ve decided to share an additional candid image with you” is straight out of the William-Kate playbook of deciding to throw the plebs a bone. Release all images and stop treating people who pay for their lives like doormats.”

          Jen +1

          1. Unfortunately, the dress is an ‘own goal’ right out of the gate. Either the couple were not advised well, or ignored it.

      2. “One other thing: the KP line of “we’ve decided to share an additional candid image with you” is straight out of the William-Kate playbook of deciding to throw the plebs a bone. Release all images and stop treating people who pay for their lives like doormats.”

        Didn’t this patronizing approach begin with Jason Knauf’s arrival? Prior to that I think statements about and the release of photos–or anything else for that matter–were much more straightforward, even for the Cambridges.

        1. Jen, nvm, I now see what you were saying. The Cambridges have been using this playbook since George was born; Jason just picked it up and ran with it, spewing out a load of needless words along the way.

          1. I thought it was great we got an extra photo, but it does kinda smack of how William operates.

            But I will wait to see if this kind of behavior keeps up. I will say Jason needs to go.

    3. I am still scratching my head to understand what people mean by “Meghan is an attention seeker”. Meghan was in the lime light way before Harry, she has pictures with many people in high positions (e.g Justine Trudeau our PM, ex POTUS Barack Obama, UN big shots etc), why would dating Harry be considered such a lime light? Meghan has been walking the red carpet for YEARS, she was already in the lime light, I dare say much more than she is in since dating Harry, she was already getting LOTS of attention pre Harry and almost none since Harry, what do people mean “she’ll lap up every attention she gets”? Someone please explain that.

        1. I’m sorry but many of us had no idea who Meghan Markle was before she hooked up with Harry. Her time in the limelight was dim at best. Her relationship will Harry has put her in another stratosphere of celebrity. I’m not saying she’s an attention seeker, but don’t try paint the picture that she was famous in her own right. If you need evidence of this, just ‘Google Trend’ Meghan Markle and you’ll see she was a “nobody” before Harry

          1. I absolutely disagree with this assessment. She was known to a smaller degree than most A-List actors, but she was far more known than any other royal bride, including those from other countries. Perhaps drawing even with Letizia of Spain.

            Saying she was a ‘nobody’ is both inaccurate and rude.

          2. RT,
            Just because you didn’t know Meghna doesn’t mean she s “unknown” it just means YOUD didn’t know her. For me and millions more of her fans, she was very well known, and as I said she was already in the lime light when she was brought to your and some at didn’t know her attention. To claim that she can’t afford the good things in life is just untrue. My daughter had no idea HM had any other kids other than PoW, but just because she didn’t know about them, does that mean they aren’t known? I think the self importance on these boards is just outrageous. People thinkin “oh I don’t know this persona so she is unknown” is absolutely crazy!! Trust me, if we all spending our time on these boards obsessing over these people, we are not all that and a bag of chips

      1. I’m not quite sure what your definition of an attention seeker is but if you are a comparatively minor actress and strive to befriend and get yourself photographed with famous people – that’s being an attention-seeker in my book,

        In fairness to Meghan, you have to be an attention seeker to be successful in Hollywood, and conversely most people who aren’t attention seeking don’t pursue that career. But the royal family is very different. They too need attention but at the same time they can never veer into celebrity – that is not wanted – in fact it is dangerous.

        Meghan can’t undo her past but she can look to the future. Because she was an actress, the burden was greater on her to avoid all signs of flashiness. All would-be royal spouses have a burden one way or the other and have to adjust to royal requirements. People have criticised me constantly for saying they should have proceeded more slowly – enough to give Meghan a chance to sense how things are done. Harry doesn’t have the sense God gave geese. He’s succeeded by being everyone’s lad and now he”s engaged, that’s over.

        This dress was a horrible faux pas. It looked Hollywood to start with to wear it when Harry was wearing a suit. And it’s going to beg the question of how it was paid for – or if it was a loan or if it was an advert – all of which are part of Meghan’s past and can’t be part of her future. Yes, the royals get all sort of perks and much of this is perception but the royal family is all about perception.

        Ralph and Russo is an elegant and hugely expensive designer. I think Kate has avoided them because of the latter. If Meghan had worn one of their gowns three years into the marriage and chose a bespoke one, not one off the catwalk, it might have been fine. But she has come storming out of the gate where she needs to be treading cautiously. Because she has a flashy past (and no uni, fashion shows nine years before an engagement don’t count) she needs to be particularly careful to take things carefully. Over those nine years, Kate built up a reputation of being a quiet girl but one with no work credentials. Meghan’s past is far flashier which is why, just as people have critiqued Kate’s work, they are going to be looking to see if Meghan is putting her celebrity life of glitz and glamour behind her.

        These ‘loved-up’ very Hollywood/Hello (which photographs people in gowns in ordinary settings) were not a help.

        1. +1 Julia. I think Meghan should have moved to England after Suits ended in November and lived there for a year before becoming engaged. People who have followed the royals for years have always said that Harry is impulsive. I think this was too rushed as well.

        2. The other Julia, I’m not sure what is so hard to understand, but there are some things that go with a certain job and are actually expected with a certain job that would render y’all “attention seeking” arguments moot. If one is an actor or a public figure, they don’t even need to go seek anyone to take any pictures of them, the media comes looking for them. That isn’t attention seeking. Attention seeking is someone who tries all they can to get into the lime light but can not, then they decide to do somemstuntbor something horrible so as to get some attention. PMeghan has done none of that, she is an actress and getting photographed, giving interviews, walking the red carpet while photographers snap away, is part of the job. No you don ‘t have to be an attention seeker to be successful in Hollywood, y’all are just twisting the definition of attention seeking to fit y’all narrative. Attention seeking behaviour is classified as some sort of menta illness, not all the actors have mental illness. IMO, if Meghan paid for this dress with her money, then it was her money. You live only once, if she felt this is something she wants to do, then he’ll yeah, go all in. There’s no rule that BRF members should wear clothes in this and that range, so I have no idea what you mean by the dress was a faux pas.
          Oh, please spare me all the Kate is an English rose and Meghan is just an actress bull crap, I’ve heard all that before. Meghan is not Kate, Meghan has worked all her life, she worked hard to get where she is at, she has her own money att she can spend as she pleases. If she wanted to tour the world travelling First class, I say go for it,miss her money, it’s not mine. If Kate did the same, I PROBABLY, would whine for a second but drop it and continue with my life; yes she is spending my money but there are bigger problems in the world thanKate spending my tax dollars;.I don’t get all wound up and tied in knots over people thatI dont even know.

        3. The Other Julia, I would counter your claim that “to be successful in Hollywood, you must exhibit at least some levels of attention-seeking traits…” (I am paraphrasing, as this was my reading of your statement).

          Tom Hanks, Meryl Streep, George Clooney (and for that matter, Amal Clooney), etc and so forth. Would you say that they are attention-seeking?

          They give interviews, but remember this is part of the contract that goes with a job. If George Clooney has made a film with 20th Century Fox, a clause in his contract directly stipulates that he is expected to be part of the film’s promotion nearing its release. Typically this includes the Late Night Talk Show route. I’ve seen Meghan Markle in a delightful interview with Craig Kilbourne, where she was promoting her successful show Suits (please, do not tell me it was not successful – any show that lasts longer than 5 seasons is enjoying success. If you’ve never seen it, that is hardly reflective of the general population). This is hardly different from Tom Hanks being interviewed by Stephen Colbert for his new film “The Post.”

          I don’t understand where you are seeing attention seeking behaviours. Meghan did that which was expected of her, which is to say, carry her weight for promoting the show.

          “Meghan can’t undo her past but she can look to the future. Because she was an actress, the burden was greater on her to avoid all signs of flashiness.”

          …What does this even mean? What dishonourable ‘past’ are you insinuating that she has? You’ve taken a very negative view of actors on the whole, and that is unfortunate, as they are human beings and many of them are quite nice (I am saying this as somebody with direct experience). Generalisations, in my view, are seldom accurate.

          1. +1000000. Thank you Weatherby! And its getting really old pretty fast arguing how Meghan needs to behave this and that way because Kate did give any interviews to anybody blah blah blah. Kate was a nobody when she married William, (this coming from a woman that adores Kate) no one would seek to interview her for nothing. Meghan was an actress before she met Harry, of course she is expected to be photographed, she is expected to do interviews, she is expected to promote her show, so classifying Meghan’s work as some attention seeking stunts is just madness. And honey, you don’t even have to look at “uni fashion show 9 years before a marriage” to recognize attention seeking behaviour, attention seeking is wearing short skimpy clothes and flashing your butt in public when you are on an official trip representing the BRF, that’s attention seeking behaviour which Meghan has never done.
            And Meghan came budging through the gate? My goodness, this woman has rarely been seen in public or even heard from since she started dating Harry, she doesn’t go to any bars or night clubs or anywhere (except to go to work or walk her dogs), she has promoted her show ONLY once in 18 months something she used to do on a regular basis, she has NOT sought out any media to be photographed while she is leaving her job, she has maintained her job and not sat home waiting on Harry, yet here she is being accused of attention seeking behaviour and “budging through the gate”? How did she “come budging through the gate”? Meanwhile, Kate who did all the above mentioned is praised for doing such a great job at building such a reputation for being a quiet girl? What would Kate have said had she had opened her mouth I pray tell? I wish Kate had gotten a job when she graduated and worked at that job and kept it for as long as it took William to marry her, then we would have some fair comparison. But how can we compare Kate, a person that has never worked (and not due to lack of jobs but because she never wanted to work) at all to Meghan a woman that has worked since she was 16 years old? I can’t…I just can’t with the hypocrisy .

          2. Julia is just looking for any reason to condemn Meghan and elevate Kate. Meghan is too forward and too modern, too American for her. She wants an old fashioned meek royal wife like Kate has been careful to become.

            Julia will never like Meghan and only tear her apart and look for ill. She is like the Ingrid Sewards of this world who are ultra conservative and appalled that “the wrong type” is marrying in.

            Julia also thinks that acting and actors are the lowest people on earth. She sneers at Meghan’s profession, which I think is horrible. Julia finds actors and acting deplorable and takes any chance to make sure you know she thinks Meghan isn’t worth the dirt on her shoe because of her chosen profession. It’s gross and wrong and needs to stop. She feels actors are far from honorable and I find this attitude to be rooted in the 19th century.

            It’s just awful. the nitpicking. And Julia has never, ever given Meghan ONE chance. NEVER.

            And now she is ready to write her off and fan the flames of the Great Dress Scandal of 2017 .


          3. Leah: stop yelling at other people and deliberately being obtuse about what they are saying.

            Julia is not bashing MM. She is pointing out a fundamental truth about British character.

            You aren’t listening in the rush to repeatedly accuse people of racism or hatred of MM or undermining her in some way or being Kate sugars because they dared to point out the ways MM is going wrong.

            It is glaringly obvious that she’s treating this like an Oscar campaign and that is completely non u and is the fastest way to make the British dislike her.

            Just look at the frontpage of the sun newspaper yesterday where they said she was ‘flashing people in her saucy engagement pictures’ as if she were a stripper. Public opinion will be formed that way. By people who don’t look deeper than that headline. You may not like it, but that is how it is.

            The Middleton family is forever lampooned because they dare to openly enjoy the fruits of Kate’s marriage. Because it’s not the British way of doing things. The only reason you don’t hear more negative stories about Kate or the Middletons is because William sent his people to all the media editors to *stop writing negative stories about them AND they employ a more savvy PR than poor Jason can ever hope to be.

            *this was the DM’s response to that errand:

            MM is making errors that are reminiscent of Fergie in her kid in a candy shop eagerness at joining the family. MM’s media narrative right now is giving me horrible flashbacks of de ja vu Fergie. Andrew singularly failed to guide Fergie who was left to flounder by herself, and if MM is making these basic errors, it demonstrates that Harry isn’t guiding her.

            Pointing out that the british character is reserved and suspicious of glitzy show offs is not code for racism or hating MM. We self-deprecate ourselves to a ridiculous degree rather than shout ourselves from rooftops.

            Further, for every good Nottingham engagement step that MM has taken, she’s taken two bad ones eg Magical prince-ing the Commonwealth or this eyewateringly expensive dress. In a country whose national character is reserve on top of facing austerity cuts.

            I don’t care who or what or why she has this dress, but she should have kept it for her private life. You think the other royals don’t have equally eyewatering couture? They have the good sense to keep it hidden.

            This was an own goal, and it will be remembered when the press turn on her. The fact that she purchased it privately lost in the mists of outrage.

            This is the royal family. Studiously and self consciously dull. Never giving the public reason to think their ultra luxurious lives subsidised by taxpayers. This is not hollywood and this isn’t the Oscars.

            The sooner MM learns that difference the sooner she’ll understand that she’s in a different field, playing a different game.

          4. Herazeus,

            “It is glaringly obvious that she’s treating this like an Oscar campaign and that is completely non u and is the fastest way to make the British dislike her.”

            Amen, sister. Spot on. That dress outed her. Intemperate and profligate.
            Definitely non-u.

            Harry and she seem to act like two kids in a candy store, IMO. I’m beginning to question her maturity. She’s 36 and seems to know very little about British sensibilities and customs, nor understand the soberness of her position. Harry would be no help there either, considering he wants to be anywhere else, anywhere exotic, just not in the UK.

            Her ‘boots on the ground’ doesn’t seem to mean getting to know the nitty gritty of British culture or hanging with the plebs. I’m still hoping she rights her trajectory. But it looks like Harry and she are on the same page- celebrity is the way to go, spreading their fragrant “magic” in exchange for barrels of money and little work.

          5. Herazeus that 2011 article is magnificient and still holds true today. Kate remains lazy and still did not do much this year. Did she even attend Centrepoint this year?
            The knives are out for Meghan and if she wanted to use the dress for the photo, the KP people should have put out that it was a loan from the get go. That way no money issues and those who don’t like the dress could focus on the actual dress and not the cost. It’s a rookie mistake and let’s hope she learns from it. This is why I want her to make friends with Sophie. She’s been through this and then hunkered down and did work and the issues faded from media glare. I just think Jason is horrible at PR and they need to get someone who understands the British media. He does not and putting puff pieces in People magazine won’t change much of anything.

          6. Thank you Hera, wise words- that was excellent. This family doesn’t take criticism, constructive or otherwise. They will do what they do because of who they are. Until they aren’t anymore. But till then, anyone trying to hold them to standards can go take a flying leap. They’re not listening. And the “young” ones can’t even manage to pretend with any interest.

  22. I don’t think Kate is shy. I think she is lazy and I think she only prefers to associate with her family, celebrities and rich and titled people. However, I do know that on Royal Dish, they used to posit some nasty theories about Kate and why she acts as she does. Things I won’t repeat here, which tells you something, as I am no fan of Kate’s.

    I don’t think Kate comes off as work-shy. She is work shy. She has years to back up the fact that she doesn’t like to work, doesn’t know what it is and doesn’t like to do it. Remember, she was roundly attacked this year, for only doing one engagement outside of London. And there comments made by officials from the northern parts of England that said that they could not get Kate and William to come up there.

    Kate is not suited for her role in any way, shape or form.

    1. This blog isn’t about Kate. You haven’t even mention Meghan once in this comment. What’s the purpose of it?

      1. What I wrote is in response to Michaela’s comment above. Look upthread and quit jumping down my throat. If you had looked upthread, you would have known what I am replying to.

    2. If I made equally critical remarks (re: Leah’s post) about Meghan Markle, would I be called out? I would really enjoy engaging in an informative, thoughtful discussion with many of you about MM (I find the whole relationship/engagement fascinating on many levels), but quite frankly, I don’t want to be told I don’t understand or respect people of color or called a racist.

      Why is the DoC subject to nicknames and derogatory descriptions, and Meghan Markle can conceivably do no wrong. Even the less flattering posts appear to be walking on eggshells to a certain degree.

      1. Garnet, it’s probably wise to keep ‘walking on eggshells’ as you put it, because criticizing the appearance of a woman of color can take on racist overtones pretty quickly in online forums. For example, I’ve seen discussions of women’s hair turn quite ugly.

      2. Hear hear! Just because she’s different doesn’t mean she’s better. Time will tell and we’ll ALL still have our own opinions

      3. I’m African-American. I have lived in the UK for 1 year. My sister lived there for 5. I fell in love with the culture, similar to Meghan Markle. Though I didn’t spend a lot of time with the upper crust of society, when I was leaving was around the time I was getting to know more “posh” people. In the US it is very easy for me to make those connections, I have many things in common with MM socially. When I was living in the UK I was just exploring & getting to know life in England. I’m very interested in legitimate criticisms as long as they are substantive. My main critique with her is she claims to be a humanitarian but it seems to be just self promotion. Wearing this dress as many have already said sends the wrong message. Especially when the UK is going through such terribly austerity. But her being a self promoter was glaring to me for a while. I would like to look up to her but I just don’t. England was very stratified to me so for her to move up in classes so quickly, something strikes me as just off. Not that luck doesn’t come into play I just don’t really have a good gut feeling about her. But possibly she is just a normal person who wanted to get to a certain station in society & achieved it. Anyways if they are in love, I’m happy for them. Lord knows Harry deserves to feel truly loved.

      4. My bad. I’ve been trying to avoid your posts. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

        For what it’s worth, I’m 100% with you on a lot of the criticism of MM being steeped in some form of racism.

    3. Leah, I am with you most of the time. But I’ve read up thread to the post you mention and I still don’t find the Kate commentary tasteful.

      I am disappointed by how little she cares for her work (and if reports are true, how much she truly *does* care for her hair regimen – those numbers are ghastly). But to say that she is not suited to her role in any way shape or form is a touch too far.

      If you dislike her attitude to public service, look no further than her husband. He is the catalyst dolt; the original disappointment. She is the way she is because of William.

      And not every criticism of Meghan is racism. This claim makes the comments thread feel uncomfortable. Princess Michael of Kent’s horrible brooch, yes that seems to openly be racism. But that is an arrogant, nasty woman and not a poster on MMR.

      I hope this doesn’t come across too strong. I am reminding myself more than anyone to be politer towards people I do not know.

      1. Weatherby, I do agree William sets the tone and I don’t like his workshy ways. He needs to step up and I am beyond sick of his hostility to the press. Kate was fine with the press until William turned her against them.

        I feel Kate is unsuited for her role because she can’t make a speech, avoids speaking in public like the plague, won’t use her platform, is content to be a meek mouse. And she seems to have no interest in anything or anyone other than her family and she is work shy.

        I am now also seeing, after it was explained to me the economic situation in England and with Brexit-although I don’t really know what that is, that Meghan was not smart in her choice of that couture dress for the phots. But I hope she will learn, not do it again and be forgiven a misstep.

        I don’t know what you mean re hair regimen and Kate.

        Re the race issue, I do not mean to make anyone uncomfortable. I see it so much on Twitter and Tumblr that I guess I see it everywhere.

        Thank you for being polite.

        1. But what I do resent is people cutting off Meghan and comparing her to Fergie with no hard proof and expecting her to be a disaster right off. Give her time. I gave Kate two years, I really did, in spite of serious misgivings and while no one will believe me, I am disappointed that Kate has turned out to be how she is. By that I mean less than hard working.

          Meghan hasn’t even gotten married yet. And she is going to mess up. Even Elizabeth the I did. Give her a chance.

          1. Hair regimen: it was reported recently that Kate spends roughly 3 hours for 3 weekly visits getting her hair primped and coiffed. Spending thousands of pounds per visit. (I mean to say 5,000£ per week). When compared to the time that she *isn’t* spending with her patronages, this seems egregious. Also not a good look during austerity.

          2. … And that is upwards of 3 hours *per visit* for the multiple visits *per week*. You could say she works half as much as she primps, but you also can’t divide by zero.

          3. When you figure in time for wiglets and everything that goes with her “work,” I wouldn’t be surprised if those numbers were true. Let’s face it, Kate has never worked. Her “job” at jigsaw was a cover and they all admitted she didn’t actually do anything there. No, I don’t think she’s shy as a person. She was very open to the cameras before Will reeled that in. I do blame him for some of her issues but she ultimately makes choices of what she is and isn’t going to be and I have to judge that at face value. I will do the same for Meghan. Like Leah and many others, I gave Kate a while to impress me and I was a sugar for a long time because I didn’t realize how much whitewashing was going on. I’m going into Meghan with open eyes this time.

          4. Kate’s value as a person does not depend on her being someone’s work horse. She doesn’t need to prove she’s a super humanitarian for people to accept or like her.

          5. Nine hours and 5,000£ a week??? Kate has nice hair but with that kind of time and money, she should have 24 carat gold strands and diamonds woven in there. That is insane.

          6. Emily de Bonville: Kate’s value as a working member of the Royal Family derives entirely from the return on the public’s investment in her. If she is seen to be wasting tax money whilst at the same time, perfectly happy to sit home and avoid her patronages, she is adding very little to the public’s investments.

            Not a good thing.

      2. It seems to me that the PR/media machine (whose, I’m not sure) is trying to sell the public in a very heavy-handed way on a great love story between the British prince and the American actress. It feels very much like a Hallmark movie . . .and I can’t help but be skeptical.

        – I’m not buying the “we knew instantly we were meant for each other” line. In my experience and in my observations, a successful relationship is work and takes mutual respect and compromise. The idea that an 18 month long distance relationship was all wine and roses seems disingenuous IMO.

        – Meghan as the great humanitarian seems like a stretch. We have seen two photo-ops (Africa and India) and a speech. I’m not sure that workload constitutes humanitarian status. Related to this, the people I know (and it’s more than a few) who have devoted their lives to humanitarian efforts generally don’t count fashion designers, society stylists, and private club consultants as their closest friends.

        – Lifestyle blogs . . .enough said. Very GOOPy Gwyneth Paltrow in my mind. In other words, too much social media translates to a heavy focus on managing the narrative.

        Sorry, but all this gives me pause . . . curious to hear what others think . . .


        1. Garnet P, based on what has been rolled out by Harry and Meghan’s respective PR over the past year or so – plus (perhaps) interference from other malignant sources – I think your assessment at this stage holds true. The larger picture and end game is to pose to the public an image of ‘modern’ royalty and regeneration in order to keep the institution going.

          At the moment it’s a full-on PR offensive to sell a particular love/work narrative. Let’s see how things roll out. There is pause for some skepticism given Harry’s variable work ethic to date; Meghan will be required to follow his lead – whatever that means in royal terms. Anything more than that will reverberate elsewhere (William and Kate).

          In essence, the quality of a person’s work should speak for them, not the rhetoric around it. The humanitarian label sits uneasily after just a handful of outings, largely organised via Meg’s PR reps. It lacks humility. Surely it’s up to others, not oneself, to confer the humanitarian moniker, and even then, after a lifetime of deep, on-going work that yields demonstrable results for people. To be fair, it may have sparked a latent interest in such work, and if so, Meghan will have a ready-made platform and a lifetime to perform hands-on work.

          Meghan is a self-confessed fan of Gwyneth Paltrow so similarities you find to GOOP are not far-fetched. But again, it is part of a PR strategy to enlarge a client’s profile as well as providing a further income stream. But yes, you are right; it is a mechanism to both write and control the narrative.

          I can’t see inside their relationship. It’s private and personal and as far as I am concerned, they don’t need to sell it to anyone. But as I said at the top of this post, there is a larger agenda of keeping the royal brand in business, IMO.

        2. How do you know Harry and Meghan don’t work together in mutual respect and compromise?

          I knew my husband for a total of 10 months before we got married. That was 10 years ago. We are quite happy and, yes, I knew instantly we were meant for each other. We also work at it and respect each other and compromise all the time.

          Why is the duration of the relationship exclusive to those things?

          1. I think it is possible these two knew immediately they were right for each other. My husband and I were engaged after a few months and knew each other a little less than a year on our wedding day. That was over 31 years ago.

            My biggest worry for Meghan is her expensive taste. I think many royal women spend far too much. I like Sophie, but she spends too much and gets far less criticism than Kate.

            The engagement gown was an early mistake. Meghan needs to be aware of the optics.

    4. Thank you Herazeus! Exacatly the points I made earlier. It seems there are some fans of Ms Markle who have no problem calling the DoC all the names they can possibly come up with while at the same time they go basically mental when people state the obvious and have a valid criticism. All they then come up with is that people are envious or hate their object of admiration. If Ms MArkle was as smart and savvy as people purport she is , she wouldn’t have made such a bad choice when it came to the dress choice. She would have studied other engagement interviews and photo ops and drawn the right conclusions. She obviously didn’t. Hopefully, she and Harry are on such a high and are just super elated that they just made a few poor PR choices. I’m actually already brilliantly entertained by just reading the comments in the newspapers and here….

  23. I LOVE these photos! Not a single gripe because they look so in love and happy. I can’t dump on this at all.

    I doubt Meghan paid for this dress. She probably had racks and racks sent to her from designers to try on for this day, as actresses and other famous people often do. Even if she did pay, it wasn’t full retail value. She has her own money so I’m not going to tell her what to do with it – until she becomes a full working member of the family business and either does or doesn’t pull her weight. Then I will judge. Until then, flaunt it if ya got it. *shrug*

    1. Agreed!! And I feel like this dress may have been a loaner- no shame in that. Being an actress, I’ll bet MM is no stranger to hiring extravagant gowns for red carpet occasions. Great publicity for the designer anyway and she looks amazing in it.

      1. The royals avoid loans – at least that is the perception. When they have not done so, it has been a problem as it is here – Diana wore borrowed jewellery for an engagement photo – the next thing the jewellery was being sold and someone was claiming it was the Spencers selling it to pay for the wedding! It was all very unfortunate.

        All royal ladies spend a fortune on clothes so much of royal dressing means walking a tightrope of dressing in an elegant way because the public wants to see beautiful clothes (and not too many repeats) and not giving the impression of buying extravagantly. It is not an easy thing. Kate is heavily criticised for spending but I would rather see her quiet way of dressing than Maxima’s excesses – others disagree. But Meghan is just starting. I thought her clothes up until now fairly wise choices. But this dress was a misjudgement.

        1. Other Julia, please, this is the 21st century. A lot is changing in the world and the BRF is changing with it, so if back in the day they did not loan anything, nobody knows now whether they do or they don’t. In their changes, they now make sure nothing leaks anywhere they can get caught, they do things that ordinary people do except they are very careful not to get caught. Kate borrows HM’s jewellery all the time, those are not cheap pieces, even though you like championing Kate for being quiet as a mouse and dressing accordingly. A lot of young women in Kate and Meghan age range like expensive stuff, but lucky for Kate, she doesn’t have to go too far to get her hands on some mega expensive diamonds. Meghan on the other hand had to work her ass off to get the money she is spending, so I don’t see what all the hoopla is about if Meghan is spending her money in whatever way. Also just the fact that Kate borrows these expensive pieces shows that she too has a taste for expensive stuff, so she is not some paragon of virtue. Kate can buy 4 dresses, all same fashion different colour for thousands of dollars and she wears a lll this thousands just once, how different is she from any other extravagant woman that spends some one else’s hard earned pay with no care in the world?
          And really, the narrative you’ve been trying so hard to push about how Meghan is this big bad monster for wearing expensive stuff or for leaving one of her dogs in Canada or for not dating Harry long enough for “us to get to know her” is very tired. You don’t now how Meghan obtained her dress, you don’t know the woman, so you know nothing about her except what you read from the internet. But even if Meghan DID buy the dress, its her money, she can do whatever she wants with her money. If she wants to buy a 60K dress for her engagement pictures, its okay, its her money, she worked hard for it, she earned it, its her money. The choice as to how to spend it is her’s, not someone else’s, period.

          1. MASMAMF, thank you. I feel the same way. There are so many pearl clutchers on this board it’s ridiculous. So what, she wore the dress. It’s her money. She didn’t kill anyone and not everyone can be a meek, silent automaton like Kate.

            Some of us like strong, outspoken women who know their own mind, have their own agency and know their worth.

            I am sick of hearing Meghan condemned over a dress. It is not a huge deal and it is not a sin. So many on this board and elsewhere want to write her off and it seems the media is blowing this up as a way to punish her because nothing else has worked. They are inventing a non-scandal and others are helping it along.

            She did one thing people don’t like and it’s villagers and pitchforks. Good lord.

            She is not a royal yet. She can spend how she likes and it is her money and she most likely did not pay full price for the dress.

            Now when she is married, if she spends like Kate, then yeah, ok.

            But for now, back off, give her space and give her a shot. I keep saying I gave Kate 2 years. I think Meghan deserves the same grace period.

          2. Borrowing jewellery from the queen is perfectly acceptable. It’s quite possible Meghan will wear borrowed jewellery on her wedding day. I would expect her to receive loans from the queen.

            Borrowing from a commercial firm is not acceptable for a royal. Those rules have not changed because advertisement is not meant to be part of royalty.

            Change is necessary but royals are not celebrities and people don’t want them to be celebrities – there is a huge difference – celebrities aren’t respected – royalty by definition represent a nation – celebrities don’t. That’s the way it is.

            No I don’t know where that dress came from (Most unlikely it was purchased by Meghan in my opinion, but that’s my opinion.) You have your opinions and are entitled to them but you know nothing more than I do. It’s all speculation as are most comments on this blog and even most by royal reporters – who at best get their material from sources which may or may not be accurate. Royalty is completely about perception and how we respond to it is our personal choice.

            For me questions about how a dog is treated may be a deciding factor – for someone else, views about Kate’s clothes or William’s expression may be the deciding factor. I’ve seen all matter of speculation about whether or not Kate suffered from H.G. None of us know. I’ve seen comments about how cheap William is – none of us know. He may be hugely generous to Kate behind the scenes – he may be cheap – it’s all guessing from bit and pieces of what we see and read.

            Before Meghan was engaged, her choices were completely her own. Now that ring’s on her finger, that’s no longer the case. I would have been shocked if Kate wore such a dress before her marriage for engagement photos – even though her parents are quite possibly as wealthy as Meghan – heavy speculation on both parts. I give Meghan no greater pass and yes, I think she needs to be especially cautious about putting celebrity behaviour behind her – just as Kate’s work history has been a concern to me.

          3. @ The Other Julia

            “Those rules have not changed because advertisement is not meant to be part of royalty.”

            Oh, then someone needs to inform Range Rover of this. Plus all the times the royal women are encouraged to wear UK designers, especially for wedding apparel.

          4. “advertisement is not meant to be part of royalty….”

            -You may want to inform the Land Rover brigade.

            “celebrities aren’t respected…”

            -*Honestly* you’re reaching for the very bottom of the barrel here.

            “I think she needs to be especially cautious about putting celebrity behaviour behind her…”

            -While we’re at it, can we ask William to put his celebrity fascinations behind him? Now THERE is a bloke who fancies himself a right A-Lister.

            Nonsense, all of this. You seem to be trying too hard to hate Meghan.

            Edit: LIZB for twinsies! 🙂

          5. I’m a royalist – I neither hate – or love – any one member – I’d never use such strong terms. I’m an admirer of Princess Alexandra and not a fan of either Camilla, having watched her conduct critically from back in the early Diana days – or Sofia who I think went too far in her pre-royal life – but I accept others here are.

            For me, it’s what royal members bring to the institution – but I don’t like the idea of royals becoming celebrities – and I have criticised both William and Harry for becoming too much like celebrities and becoming too close to them long before Meghan. I admire much of Diana’s work but her closeness to celebrities is not something I admired.

            I don’t believe most celebrities are respected because of their excessive lifestyles, casual ‘loved up’ relationships and break-ups and luvvie talk. And when celebrities are mixed too closely with royals frequently becomes subject to criticism – witness the fuss when Andrew threw a birthday party for Beckham’s daughter at the palace – and Beckham tweeted it. There was an outcry.

            I was critical of the Land Rover engagement of William’s and Kate because I thought it was too close to an advert and that away day needed more serious events. I’ve also been very critical of Peter Philips who now scrapes the bottom of polls, not just for the link with Land Rover but for the mess of the queen’s birthday celebration which his firm should not have been involved with. I’ve also been very critical of the Middletons and feel they should stay far more in the background.

            So you may not like what I think, but I’m consistent. And frankly the only thing I feel about with Meghan personally is Bogart, and I’ve said that’s just me. Otherwise, my criticism is the same as it would be for Kate. As for the dress, it’s a poor optic as someone put it. But even if it had been a cheaper gown, I don’t think it was the right look – it smacked of Hello! which photographs people in daytime settings in gowns – and the mixture with Harry’s suit emphasised that. If Meghan had worn the dress she wore to the party, the formal picture would have been lovely.

            There is a photo of Diana in a gown with her two sons in casual clothes. I always assumed that was because she was being photographed in that gown and they joined her – but it’s not a favourite photo of mine, although others think it charming.

          6. Other Julia… I think it’s fair that you criticize all the royals about their celebrity obsession and under the table sponsorships. The lack of accounting in the BRF is one of the reasons I want them gone as representing Canada once the Queen passes. They don’t share my culture as a Canadian (who are far more than just former British colonists) and they don’t give a toss about our differences. William being too dumb or lazy to speak French is a huge slap in the face to French Canadians as well. All our prime ministers have been bilingual in recent years, and those not born bilingual have learned French. Our governor generals are also very accomplished regardless of which party appoints them and William in particular has done little in his 35 years that even compares. I could point to many Canadians of similar age who have accomplished far more, but then again he doesn’t have to because he was born into the role and doesn’t have to excel at anything. Which is my entire issue with hereditary rule. Genetics don’t guarantee success or merit. And history has proven that over and over again.

            Anyway, I have recently learned that one of my work colleagues is from the same smallish town as Cory and I have asked her to get me more details about what happened with the dog, because her parents know Cory’s parents. I will report back once she has provided me with more information.

          7. If we can apply criticism equally, that is fair enough. Your initial remarks were about Meghan, and so I did not immediately see a balance in them. My apologies, The Other Julia.

          8. If the Beckhams are your standard for relating celebrity status, it is no wonder your view of celebrities is so poor. That’s a bit of a shame.

          9. Leah,

            “She did one thing people don’t like and it’s villagers and pitchforks. Good lord.

            She is not a royal yet. She can spend how she likes and it is her money and she most likely did not pay full price for the dress. ”

            No one has her up in stocks. Not fair to accuse everyone of being a lynch mob. The fact is, this was a major faux pas. And though people may think it’s okay to show off a dress that costs almost 100,000 CAN, it comes across as profligate. It speaks to character- no one needs a dress so obscenely expensive. No one. And it’s not even anything special.

  24. It is interesting to me that what people seem to want from Meghan (and the various HRHs) varies. There is no consensus as to whether there should be royals at all, or if they have some valuable role, what it is. Some of the European royals seem to have gauged their own societies, and come up with a way of representing themselves as both “royal” and “modern”. In fact, the idea of “modern royalty” is an oxymoron, but they’re giving it a go . . . Meghan is in this mold. (Kate is not.) Meghan is a modern career woman, a black American divorcee and a minor celebrity t.v. actress. (I’m American, but I had never heard of her.) She’s all kinds of novelty that would not have been tolerated even one generation ago. She’s also sophisticated about fashion signifiers and knows how to costume herself for a part. Her very princessy dresses seem very far from her former style, and her proclamation that she wanted a wedding dress like Caroline Bissett’s very pared down, minimalist sheath. That dress seems consistent with her well defined pre-engagement style, but her new looks seem downright fussy and high maintenance ((princessy?).

    1. Regardless of how beautiful she looks, the cost of this one dress, and the issue of who paid, are both issues on which she is wide open. Even if she wanted to change her own style to seem more “princessy”, she could have easily found a lovely dress for a fraction of the cost of this one and maintained some of her former socially concerned, working woman credibility. In the midst of the Brexit crisis, Greenfield and a very shaky economy in which basic benefits are being cut, spending this much money on one dress underscores the remoteness and indifference of the BRF, regardless of who paid for it and whether they got a discount. It is a “let them eat cake” dress, while Prince Harry is still in his man-of-the-people outfit.

      1. +1. Perfectly said. The dress was a serious misstep. Its cost minimises the socially concerned woman into one who may become high maintenance. And weren’t there earrings (?) a couple of days ago that cost close to £6,000?

          1. But are they new earrings? Could they not have been presents from Harry over the last 18 months? The Suits crowd are all pretty well paid and could well have given her earrings as a gift…they’re all hoping for an invite to the wedding. There’s absolutely no indication the taxpayer paid so what’s it got to do with us?

            Having a ring does not make her royal. It’s a stepping stone.

          2. I agree too. There is a difference between celebrity and royalty. Meghan may not understand that yet. (Although I think it is something she should have been more sensitive about.) Harry certainly should. To my mind this is something Harry should have picked up on and guided Meghan accordingly. If she is using a stylist then she needs to find one who understands the difference. It’s rubbish optics. As a British citizen I do not want royalty and celebrity to be confused. By anyone.

        1. Yeah, the earrings were most likely a gift from Harry. I think we all need to back off commenting on the cost of Meghan’s wardrobe and accessories. It’s tiresome and haters are going for her jugular because it is a “safe” way to attack Meghan and because they can’t find another avenue to do so.

          When Meghan is royal, that is one thing, but for now, I think we should concentrate on other things.

          1. This is on Harry. If Meghan is not yet sensitive to the views of the British people then I’ll give her a pass for now but she needs to learn fast. No need to give people ammunition just for a dress. I also agree that her dress and Harry’s clothes are a total mismatch. If she is as close to him as it would appear then I don’t understand how she wouldn’t see that and choose a dress that complemented his. Or vice versa. Great photos but also a great shame to make such a silly mistake when it would have been so easy to get it right.

      2. Oddly, vivian, that was my take on the dress as well – “princessy”. She’s living the dream.

  25. I’m just going to say that I adore the interaction of the photos. As a photographer it’s always lovely to work with couples who you don’t have to work with or coax to show emotion and be affectionate. I’m sure Alexi had a great time with them. I have opinions about the clothing but they’ve already been articulated above. So I’m going to take the happy moments and enjoy remembering what that felt like. We’re very happy but we’re 14 years in and though the love is deeper, I loved those earlier, giddier moments. Sometimes we still feel them, but it’s normally when we can ditch our kids for more than just a couple of hours.

  26. Stunning! H&M’s love shine so clearly through these portraits. 🙂

    Like Meghan’s dress from the waist up but the skirt doesn’t do it for me; she wears it well though.

  27. Alexi Lubomirski- stunning work! Hope to see more pics of the BRF taken by him- and he should definitely be the official photographer for their wedding.

    1. He should, he’s an excellent photographer. I think they’ll be a bit traditional but release some more modern shots of the two together and their wedding party.

  28. Let the battle began….Enjoy reading MMR’s post. The comments are so FUNNY…it’s like a train wreck, I can’t get enough of the cat fights!!!

  29. They look happy and I do not doubt that they are in love,but their poses are too intimate for my liking.
    My favourite photograph is the first,the poses in the other two are too intimate.

  30. Well – here we go – that style of skirt is way too fussy and the above waist line fabric and style seem “off” as a partner to the below waist line . . . but if you were on the red carpet it would probably have been considered OK. Do men in the UK wear dark daytime suits ? Because I’m thinking a dark grey would have been better for Harry. But despite the questionable fashion they are clearly very happy together which is what is most important

  31. I love the photos, because yes, the look in love, but they also give us what we wanted: Hollywood fairy tale – she is Hollywood & he is fairy tale. If she wore something low key, people will be complaining because she is trying to copy being understated English rose.
    £56 000 is a lot of money, so I hope she gets a lot of wear out of it.
    I would have loved if she choose a unknown designer, it would have been a amazing thing to do.

    1. But no, a Hollywood fairy tale isn’t what is wanted by most traditional royalists who remain the backbone of support for the royal family – Hollywood fairy tale are gushy, over-the-top, superficial – madly-in-love today, divorcing (or should I say conscious uncoupling) tomorrow.

      A real royal marriage is a serious affair – marrying a job where you represent your partner’s country – achieving balances that can be vert hard to achieve, and royal divorce is a nightmare that leaves the divorced partner especially in limbo – without a role.

    2. I think that there are enough people who want royal family to deliver a Hollywood fairytale but woe to the royal who is foolish enough to deliver this and Harry and Meghan are the perfect dupes. The bottom line is that the public is going to gladly consume their glamour for as long as they are actually glamorous and then turn them into punchlines and objects of derision when they no longer have use for them, see Princess Margaret and Prince Andrew and his clan.

  32. Count me in as someone who thought wearing an obscenely expensive sheer dress was a huge misstep. Meghan (guided by Harry) should remember that this is not Hollywood anymore. It just sends a very wrong message regardless of who paid for the dress. I know many will say Diana wore couture, but she was a long established Royal by then, and the next Queen. Harry, ironically, is soon to be 6th in line, jobless, and many view that he should be holding a regular job in his current status. A lower-key, sensible dress would have been perfect… because they truly are beautiful photos.

  33. Walked into my local newsagent. Frontpage of Sun Newspaper : MM flashes in engagement photos.

    The semi-fine print goes on to detail how she ‘wasn’t wearing a bra in saucy engagement pictures’.

    That is not a good headline.

    The Sun likes to boast they are the voice of the people. You don’t want to give them meme worthy pictures because they will craft a negative image of you which is hard to reverse.

    And pointing out that she wasn’t wearing a bra, regardless of veracity of this claim, and saying she was flashing, is definitely not good.

      1. Makes me wonder if there is now a new protocol added to the list: royals shall not wear pasties in public.

        1. Jet Texas: Somethings are pretty obvious they don’t need explanation.

          Wanting to give her the benefit of the doubt, i thought that Kate who clearly lacks commonsense needed the obvious to be explained to her regarding hemlines and floaty dresses on windy runways (runways are ALWAYS windy), but alas i came to the conclusion that she likes it that way.

          And so to MM. Who should be PR intelligent based upon her previous profession.

          Then again, her previous profession aspires to the high end of everything to teleport success so she won’t understand that she’s married into a nation of reserved people who would rather die than show off about their success, and will quickly mock those who do. And the aristocrats are worse. Look at all the mocking the Middletons get for showing off their success.

          And by the same token, the media will use those things to construct a negative narrative.

          1. Herazeus, please tell me you aren’t permanently soured on Meghan. She will make mistakes. To me, I don’t see the big deal. The dress did not cost taxpayer money. Either Meghan or Harry paid for it and since it is not a dress from this season, Meghan most likely got a discount.

            I for one like to see royalty dolled up and dripping in jewels, etc. They are royalty.

            Now to me, if she does keep this line of spending up or has the same workshy ways as Kate, then yes, I can see you throwing in the towel, but I would hope you would give her a decent amount of time to prove herself and not cut her off after this incident.

            You are my fave and it would break my heart if you did.

          2. Leah: i think you forget that i am English AND that i worked in PR.

            As an english person, putting a beady eye on MM, her mistakes jump out at me. We like to give a person the benefit of the doubt, but tiny mistakes like she’s making sour us very quickly. I want to love her, but she’s making it hard with these mis-steps.

            The royals are studiously dull and not pushing their luxurious lifestyles in our faces even though we all know they live those lives complete with priceless couture and jewels. it’s a conjurer’s trick to make the public, and MM needs to learn it fast.

            As a PR person, i can’t believe the tone deafness, and the inability to read the room aka the country she’s about to represent.

            This isn’t hollywood, and this photo wasn’t destined for a vogue spread.

            Speaking of vogue, this picture would have been fabulous for vogue, and the cost of the dress irrelevant.

          3. It doesn’t seem like Meghan is getting any coaching or advice at all. She may be PR savvy but it’s in a completely different context and she needs help to figure out the new expectations. It’s not realistic to expect her to navigate it all on her own. It makes me wonder about Harry. Does he not advise her at all or is he so besotted he just lets her make all the decisions?

          4. Gatita: I’ve been thinking that too. I don’t think Harry is guiding her. He is besotted which is fine and good for her because having a cold husband on top of that strange family is bad news.

            I fear that Harry is going to be like Andrew in the sense that he won’t guide his wife because he assumes she can handle it or she can barrel through it, and won’t see the problem until too late.

          5. I fear that Harry is going to be like Andrew in the sense that he won’t guide his wife because he assumes she can handle it or she can barrel through it, and won’t see the problem until too late.
            I can see that but another scenario is that he will go into protect mummy mode which he and William have a predisposition towards.

          6. AAA: absolutely. Not guiding her AND going into protective mummy mode. And blaming the media or the public instead of correcting at source.

            Unlike WK who have institutional heir protection, HM are the spares like Andrew and Fergie. No protection for them.

            WK probably think their strategies are working without considering the institutional heir protection which means that they will rarely be called out AND their reputations will never be truly ruined because of their status.

          7. I don’t think Harry or William really understand how people feel about the royal family and yet feel that their opinions are the only ones that matter. Kate is obviously guided by William. I worry about Meghan if her source of advice is Harry.

  34. I like two out of the three – the walking one shows the whole gown and the scenery, but seems a bit off to me. She’s dressed to the nines and Harry has his favorite blue suit and scruffy shoes! I also roll my eyes at KP Twitter with its “you’ve been so nice to us we will bless you with another photo. You’re welcome” attitude.

    They look so happy and she’s amazingly photogenic. I think she will style things in an interesting way, which is fun for fashion watching.

    I do think the price of the dress is an issue, even if she rented the runway. The press will write about the cost, and in the current Brexit climate, that is a misstep for the royals.

    But, this couple exudes happiness, so I think critiques of an extravagant engagement photo session will pass….the question is how long good will will last if people continue to feel economically tight and see the royals continuing to spend fortunes or spending more time helping the disadvantaged abroad than at home.

    1. “You’ve been so nice to us we will bless you with another photo. You’re welcome.”
      Yes! That’s it in a nutshell. It sounds patronizing.

      1. Yes, I think that is a terrible way to put it – the same with William and Kate where similar language has been used – it’s like a bauble given to good schoolchildren.

    2. Herazeus, I don’t think I knew you were English. As you said, Meghan is making mistakes-tiny ones. Don ‘t you think she should be given a chance, some more time to grow in her role. She is not technically a royal yet. From me, she gets a grace period of 2 years, which is what I gave Kate.

      I just think it is unfair for people to just dismiss Meghan after this one mistake.

      I mean what other mistakes has she mad e that are that awful that can’t be overlooked? Maybe it is because I am American, but I think some leeway needs to be given. I just don’t know why, when it comes to Meghan, people have such low tolerance.

      I think she is a lovely, warm, outgoing human, who has much to offer and should be treated as such.

      1. You also identify with her on many levels Leah, so it’s understandable that you would give her extra leeway. But she’s already making choices that are making people pause and raise their eyebrows. I believed everything Kate said for longer than I should have since she never showed any real interest in doing what she said. But I really wanted that sincerity to be there and be genuine. It’s ok to root for your girl but don’t get caught turning a blind eye when faced with certain truths. Been there done that and hence my sideline stance with MM – fool me once and all that…

        1. Ray, I totally agree. Like I said, I too rooted for Kate at the beginning and gave her two years and then I realized Kate would never do what she said.

          I adore and support Meghan and she has two years in my book to prove herself.

    3. Herazeus + 1. The Brits want to see understatement and class which they have not got from these photos. We don’t want to see our royals behaving or dressing like Hollywood stars or celebrities. That’s not what royalty is about at all.

      The photos are great and would have been a complete success if Meghan had chosen an appropriate dress. SO silly because it would have been so easy to get it right. And such a waste of a great opportunity to impress the British people. Why give them such obvious ammunition?

      Lainey has an interesting take on these photos when she says they remind her of a fragrance ad. If Meghan is using a stylist then there is no excuse for this. I am agnostic about Meghan and quite prepared to give her a chance but another mistake like this just shows insensitivity and that will alienate people further.

      Just to be clear, this is not racism or a criticism of actresses or Americans. I would feel the same way regardless of the person wearing the dress. I dislike comparisons between Meghan and Kate. They are different women with different qualities. Both have good and less good qualitites. But the insensitivity of choosing a dress which has cost this much is extraordinary. Had Kate worn it, no one woukdhave thought it appropriate. If they didn’t pay full price that makes it worse. I just don’t understand how anyone thought this was a good idea.

      BTW she also needs to get rid of the overly whitened teeth. It looks really unnatural. Especially when compared with Harry’s!

  35. Just wanted to add I just checked a board that has nothing to do with the royals (sports related) and the off topic section had a thread on news of the world. Harry and Meghan’s engagement was discussed. Their take is they like Meghan and think she is intelligent, personable and will work on humanitarian issues, but every single person (more than 10) was aghast at the cost of the dress and expressed surprise at the deafness of the royals during the austerity of Brexit. So, it is being discussed, and it does make an impression on the “average Joe”. Interestingly, they see it as a royal decision, and never discussed Meghan potentially buying, renting, or borrowing the gown on her own. She’s already a full royal member in their minds and her fashion now represents the Firm.

    1. I think that the impression upon the general public as opposed to the smaller group of “royal watchers” like those who comment on this blog may be the most valuable opinion to the royals in the grand scheme of things and I agree with your assessment that the cost of the dress is off putting to the “average Joe”. People who are royal watching as a hobby tend to discuss things more in depth (who bought the dress, is it a loan, etc.) But I think that who bought the dress is not as relevant as the message it sends to the public. I think Meghan can continue to dress fashionably but in a more reserved way price wise. There are many gorgeous dresses that are made by famous designers that cost a fraction of this $70,000 dress. I think that is way too much.

    2. Ann, I think your assessment is good, but I wonder if people will be quick to forget the cost of this dress. Especially, the people who feel negatively about Meghan, Harry and the engagement.

      I wish the couple along with their advisors would have gotten in front of the dress issue. They could have said something along the lines that Harry loved this dress on Meghan and wanted her to wear it for some of the photos. Also, something should have been said about the shocking price of the dress (i.e. the dress was purchased by the bride months ago).

      I would not be surprised if this was the designer choice for the wedding gown, unless this misstep with the price of the gown, has Meghan taking a step back and going with a different designer in the hope the criticism over the price of the gown dies down.

      She does look beautiful and the photos show their joy and love. My favorite is the black and white photo where Harry partially wraps Meghan in his coat. Very Mark Darcy to his Bridget Jones.

      1. That is one of my favorite movie scenes of all time. Sometimes I watch just that five minutes, from them talking on her stoop to his fantastic line about how nice boys kiss, to cheer me up when I’m feeling grumpy.


          Ok, I’m sorry. That was a bit much. Em, you got me going 🙂

  36. I like the black and white picture and I do believe Harry is really in love. The dress was also wore on the show Reign (Queen Mary). Wont help her nickename Media Meghan, but thats her choice I am sure she was advised.
    The choice of the dress, what she meant with that shows a lot what she is up to at this marriage. I no longer gonna discuss this with fangirls, after this I will just sit back and watch.

    I wish Harry hapiness and Meghan too she is about to get everything she always dream and I am sure thats her big moment and I hope she is happy too.

    1. Reign is filmed in Toronto, so if this dress was used on that show, then it really is unlikely that Meghan had to pay full price for it. There aren’t that many studios in Toronto, so there was probably a common costume designer.

  37. I think for me the issue quite simply is not who paid for the dress but the fact that the price of it is more than what many people’s annual salary is. That is not a good PR move.

    1. Interesting to see how many people are defending her on this thoughtless purchase, whether or not it is by her or the Bank of Charles (I personally believe the latter considering Meghan is keen, ha, on pushing this ‘royal fairytale’ PR image). It makes her look tone deaf, stupid, and yes, a massive gold digger. If Kate did it people would freak out, even if it were pre-marriage. She’s now all but a member of this conservative institution and must act like it. Or else I foresee bad things happening…

      1. +1 Ellie. I also believe it may be from the “bank of Charles”. People speculate it could have been given to her for free or as a loan but KP didn’t say that, they said it was privately purchased. Even if it was not at full price. Meghan and her advisors must learn that everything she wears will be researched and commented on. A $70,000 ball gown for engagement pictures was over the top.

  38. The controversy about the price of the dress, leaving out whether it is a good or bad look, is one reason that the finances of the BRF need to be rationalized. The lack of transparency is ridiculous for a head of state and family.

      1. It only took them two days to cover the story and that was after Rebecca English got so many angry tweets about it.

    1. Good! This is additional proof she is as ugly as can be. I hope HM does/says something. In my greatest fantasy, this woman and her husband are kicked out of their current digs and given the nastiest, grungiest, tiniest royal place to live in the furthest corner of royal land.

      I know I always say this, but I am not a PC and Camilla fan, but somehow I think they must be livid. If HM does not do something, I bet if Princess Michael is still alive when PC becomes King, he will find a way to deal with her.

    2. Does anyone know if Princess Michael was at W and K’s wedding? After this I hope she stays away from H and M’s.

    3. Meghan is a biracial American, does the POK believes she can throw something at Meghan she hasn’t already seen, heard or experienced…I hope Meghan takes the high road and let the POK action speak for itself!!! When they go low we go high!!

    1. I wasn’t sure what everyone was talking about. I thought it was just an inconspicuous brooch as well, But HOLY FREAKIN’ COW! Could it be anymore in your face? Honestly, how does she get away with it? It’s as vicious a gesture as her face.

      1. “…as vicious a gesture as her face….” LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!

        I am in stitches over this comment, Maven! Bless you, it’s been a dreary afternoon.

  39. Oh my God. I began this comment section by saying “Bye, Felicia” to a poster storming off because she was so sick over Meghan’s choice of dress. Now I’M ready to storm off and say “Bye, Felicia” to an entire community of royal watchers. This is f-ing ridiculous. Has anyone read actual news lately? There is so much in the world to get upset over. A couple’s engagement photos should not come close to making that list. Neither should decisions a woman’s makes with money she earned.

    YES, this isn’t “how it’s done.” A prince marrying a biracial woman also isn’t “how it’s done” – but OH LOOK! That’s changing, and a lot of other things are going to start changing as well. It’s probably best for your health and blood pressure that you adjust your expectations accordingly.

    1. @Reba bless yr kind heart, I love yr post of dec 22 @ 1:26pm👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾. Nuff said

    2. I doubt Meghan is going to change anything. She is marrying Harry, spare to the heir to the heir, who is about to be pushed even further back in line to the throne by a baby. Even Diana couldn’t change the monarchy and she was the crown princess.

      I have read actual news. This blog is about Meghan though. It is possible to be upset over more than one thing.

      1. I’m calling BS about her being sorry.
        Truly, I do not mean to offend, but this choice on her part makes me sick.

          1. There are people actually defending Princess Michael on this?

            Shame on them. Shame on Princess Michael.

          2. Weatherby, take a gander at TRF. It was wild to see people defend PM.

            Ironically, RD universally condemned PM.

        1. She’s deftly returned the problem to ‘those offended’ ie. Meghan. Typical non apology. I doubt she’s sorry at all.
          Her statement is saying Princess Michael is the real victim here, she’s harmlessly wearing a brooch which was a gift (not her fault, she didn’t buy it!) and she’s worn many times (nobody else was offended all the previous times she’s worn it, it’s only NOW it’s a problem. How welcoming, only the new half african American fiancé would have a problem with it!). I agree that she’s a stupid racist.

      2. Yes. Marie-Christine is sorry. And Marie-Christine is distressed.
        Sorry and distressed because she has been called out and made accountable.

        She is either stupid or she is racist.
        I suspect she’s a stupid racist.

        1. I agree. I also think someone from BP or KP spoke to her and reminded her where she stands in the royal order and that insulting the Queen’s future granddaughter in law is a very dumb thing to so.

    1. She may not be genuinely sorry, but the release of this statement shows that someone has, at least, had a word with her.

      And the result of that conversation did not go PM’s way.

      1. I think she’s only sorry for the fact that she’s facing such public criticism. That her spokesperson (is this someone from BP??) added that she has worn the brooch many times before without controversy suggests–to me, anyways–that PM does not grasp how seriously offensive it is: Something along the lines of “it wasn’t a problem before, why should it be now, but I’ll go ahead and say ‘sorry’ if that’s what it takes to shut these people up.”

  40. That heifer is sorry she got caught. For a while, I thought the UK press was gonna let her get away with this, but people really bombarded major royal reporters with tweets last night.

    I wonder who had a word. I wonder if Harry raised hell and went to the Queen or was it a case of no one said anything and the press got to her?

  41. I originally wrote this on the Christmas luncheon post earlier today.

    TMZ is reporting: “A spokesperson for the wife of the Queen’s cousin tells TMZ … she’s “very sorry and distressed” she wore her Blackamoor brooch to the Xmas shindig. We’re told it was a gift she’s worn many times before, without controversy.

    A source connected to Kensington Palace tells us Princess Michael was not trying to insult Meghan or any people of color. The source says she’s learned her lesson, and is going to retire the brooch for good.”

    The story is shown on the opening page of the site.

  42. I call BS on her retiring the brooch. But I will say that now that TMZ is on the case, let Princess Push try that mess again. I expect them to dig up her SS dad’s past.

      1. Yeah and it is pretty bad if a former royal chef would say that and he knows ALL the gossip. Princess Margaret’s son said he would give he wouldn’t wish Princess Michael on his worst enemy.

          1. And considering Frederick and Gabriella seem normal, adjusted people (sans Freddie’s drug problems) I guess she or the nannies were good at looking after them.

            Margaret though…was a nightmare.

  43. Her entry in Wikipedia was quickly altered 22 Dec: “In December 2017, the Princess wore a blackamoor brooch to meet the biracial American fiancée of Prince Harry, Meghan Markle.”

    Going on in the background of her life, her DIL was seriously injured in an automobile accident 3 Dec. No recent reports of Sophie’s condition have been published. Curious that TMZ didn’t mention it.

  44. I too find it curious has there has been radio silence on Sophie’s accidemt. It was days before any word came out about it. I mean, I understand the family wants privacy and that Sophie is not a major royal, but still.

    1. He did not say that Meghan supporters were trying to start a race war. If you read the tweet he said some “keyboard warriors” are “using Meghan” to “fight a race war”. There is a difference. Now, I’m not defending him or the tweet, just pointing out that your description/interpretation is not same as the plain language of his statement.

      Perhaps MMR would consider creating a permanent open posting section elsewhere on the blog where commenters can post random OT comments such as these?

    1. Oh, I understand. I haven’t quite figured Palmer out (metaphorically speaking) when it comes to Meghan.

      1. To be honest, Palmer doesn’t seem to like Meghan and he uses reverse racism to back up his opinon. He is one of the few royal reporters to not address Princess Michael’s racism.

        And what galls me the most is that the UK press only castigated Princess Michael after the US press picked up the story and quite rightfully called Princess Michael out. At least that is what it seems like.

        It also put the UK press on notice that the US press is watching Meghan following her closely and won’t take any mess.

        Actually Palmer just addrsesed Princess Michael’s brooch:

        1. I think that it should be noted that not all cultures have the same racial history and baggage. I am an American and I can see why that brooch gets our hackles up, other things get my hackles up like Zwarte Piet / Black Pete and the use of the term “coloured”. I don’t plan to have a relaxed attitude about those types of things but I do recognize that reactions (and strength of reactions) to these kinds of things differ based on one’s culture.

  45. Time to say goodbye to MMR. Just like KMR this used to be a place of good conversation, educated opinions and light hearted fun. The comments now are so Celebitchy (a blog I dislike) and Royal Dish-y (the worst).
    Have a good time, merry Christmas and a happy new year!

  46. What exactly can people say to defend Princess Michael? I mean, what argument can they draft in her defense? If this brooch was meant to represent Balthazar, one of the wise men, why not wear a brooch that has all three wise men of different races on it? This is clearly not just one of the three wise men. It is an example of blackamoor art that fetishists black people. In an interview she gave she called black people she met in African “adorable” as if they were children or something cute to play with. It was terribly patronizing. I am not one to use the term racist lightly. But The more I learn about her the more racist she seems. I think she wishes she could go back to the Victorian era of the White Man’s Burden. It seems she has romanticized colonization.

    Yea. I think she is definitely racist. And I think she wore this brooch on purpose. She just may not be familiar with the Internet and social media culture. She didn’t realize how many people were going to tweet at reporters until they wrote reports about it. A few decades ago she probably could get away with this without any reports writing about it. But people have more of a voice now with soctal media and they were not going to let it go until the professionals wrote about her. I think that may have surprised her and that’s why she put out this crappy apology.
    Does it really matter that someone give it to her as a gift? Or that she has worn it many times before? No. Because she shouldn’t be wearing it at all. Even if Meghan were not at the party at all.

    1. It’s worth remembering the this isn’t just about Meghan -the palace has many people of colour employed – aides, members of the forces, clerical staff, plus diplomats from many nations who visit – and Britain is a diverse nation. I can’t see any possible excuse for a member of the royal family to wear a brooch like that which may be of its time but is certainly not acceptable now.

      I wouldn’t call say Princess Michael is unintelligent but she is remarkably obtuse and has shown that over and over again through the years.

        1. I’m not sugar-coating it. It was awful and quite possibly intentionally insulting.

          In the past, I’ve found Princess Michael ridiculous – but since she was so low in the hierarchy of the royal family – so obviously not British in her thinking and so excessive, reading her outspoken interviews was almost funny. But this and the other racist incidents are certainly not funny. I always suspected she would go too far and it’s happened. I would be curious to know if there is more behind this relating to that precious flat of the Michaels in Kensington Palace – or if it was just her usual clueless self.

          For an example of a situation of racism coming from the same European noble world she does, Google the situation of Carina Axelsson – who is barred from marriage in theory with her prince due to a snobbish – and racist will written by a Nazi grandfather. .

          1. There are rumors that the Kents will be forced out due of their apt in favor of Harry and Meghan. Do you think this is true?

          2. Leah , I don’t think Forced Out , I think they have offered to move. They have a large apartment and are probably happy to downsize. They could even do a swap and move in to Notts Cott.

          3. I find it hard to imagine Princess Michael offering to move – I always envisioned her having to be dragged out. She sounded rather territorial about the back garden attached to her flat too – a garden that originally belonged to Charles and Diana’s flat but which Princess M now has the use of.

            She did generously suggest in a Tatler article some years ago, that the Gloucesters should move out soon, so Harry could have their flat. The way she worded it was not tactful and if I were the Gloucesters who have multiple grandchildren I would feel Princess M should mind her own business. Not a subject where she excels.

    2. I just saw this brooch and I’m shocked.How could someone reasonable wear something like this?
      I will never understand why people are racist.It’s heart-breaking to see something like this.Princess Michael can feel ashamed of herself (although I highly doubt she does).
      I would be embarrased if I would have attended this dinner and saw her walking around with this “jewelry”.

    1. Funny you should pick up a superficially positive article from the most anti-monarchist paper in the UK and not notice all the sly digs at MM that point out exactly why this dress was all wrong.

      Our papers are sly like that, and that’s why public figures need to be careful about giving them ammunition.

      This article is classic trapdoor / honourable article where it means the opposite of what it’s saying like Mark anthony did in his ‘honourable gentlemen’ speech in Julius ceasar whilst pointing out all the little negative details that are the opposite of honourable.

  47. Look, I just choose to support Meghan. I have said many times how I feel about this dress fuss. I also believe Meghan should be given more chances and not condemned and written off as so many on this board are doing over a dress.

    1. We know. But it’s not only on this blog. It’s everywhere. And it’s not OK. It’s was totally foreseeable and could so easily have been avoided.

    1. She’s just not catching a break, is she? I know if that were my baby, I’d be in pieces with anxiety. What a start to her new life.

      Negative press
      Leaving poor Bogart
      Dress fiasco
      Negative press
      Princess Michael slight
      Guy injury

      Here’s hoping that Guy is OK and that the new year proves better.

      1. @Weatherby,
        It’s being reported that Bogart was left behind because he did not pa so clearance due to his age, not because Meghan wanted to leave him behind. She probably would give anything to have both her dogs with her but he was “deemed too old to move”.

  48. I think the photos are lovely and hope Harry and Meghan will be very happy.

    As for the noise about the cost of the dress? Oh Good Grief! DM are so quick to name the price of clothes, or that persons house aren’t they? It would be nice if DM could have said something like “the cost of this dress when it was released in 2016 was…” but that wouldn’t be DM then would it? Meghan may have bought it when it first came out, or it could have been purchased at a consignment store (as it was a couple of seasons old?). I think DM just wanted to stir up trouble whic would drive people to their website to find out more… It’s just done for clicks, right?

    I don’t blame Meghan for wanting a pretty dress for her engagement photos, and (IMO) it’s 1000 times nicer than that horrible polyester looking Issa dress which Kate wore.

    Now, as for Princess Michael of Kent and that brooch. She does tend to wear “look at me, look at me” big, expensive jewellery. She seems very thick skinned (IMO) so I’m tending to think she put that over the top expensive piece of jewellery on that day as it’s probably quite valuable, another day when she wanted to show off her wealth. It’s beyond me that she couldn’t see that wearing a blackmoor anywhere, no matter who was there, is inappropriate? But then I’m a “colonial” so I should probably go back to where I came from too?

  49. What about the other viewpoint that maybe Princess Michael was paying homage to Meghan by wearing that brooch? In her mind that is, and of course she wouldn’t say that if asked by the press. For example, when white people bring up black actors or singers when they talk to you, as if that’s all you know is your own kind in entertainment, they try to relate to you is what I mean. So maybe Princess Michael thought, “Hey, I’ll wear this brooch because it’s black like Meghan, and she’ll feel welcome.” You never know.

    I find it ridiculous that the press/public is going to point out what they think is racist on behalf of Meghan as if they are her. We don’t know how Meghan feels about that brooch, who knows if she even noticed it. It’s setting a dangerous trend because people are ignorant enough to believe that Meghan herself had a problem with the brooch, instead of the press/public.

    The brooch is not the problem, systematic racial oppression is. What kind of brain do you have to think you are better because of your skin color?! As if I had a choice of what skin color I would be born with. Racists are mentally challenged. Meghan is a human being, what exactly is the point of pointing out races or skin colors? I understand that we come from different countries with different skin colors and facial attributes, but we are all human beings.

    The only reason why we know of Meghan is because of Harry and that’s who racist/bias people should be upset with, but they won’t condemn one of their own. Instead they take cheap shots at a woman Harry chose!

    1. Well ok. Except:

      1.) I knew who Meghan was prior to her dating Prince Harry. Perhaps you didn’t, and that is OK, but not something you can assign to everybody else.

      2.) The insensitivity of the gesture is the problem. No one is claiming Meghan to have felt one way or the other. In the news bits I’ve seen/heard, the story focuses on Princess Michael, the brooch, and Meghan’s presence. No one has ascribed an emotion to Meghan, because that’s not quite the point.

      3.) I’m not certain what you mean here –
      “The only reason why we know of Meghan is because of Harry and that’s who racist/bias people should be upset with, but they won’t condemn one of their own. Instead they take cheap shots at a woman Harry chose!”

      … Who is it that racist/biased people ought to be upset with? I’m reading this as ‘people should feel upset with Harry’. Am I reading this wrong?

      1. 1. Then I meant some people just found out who Meghan is because she was dating Harry, whereas you knew of her before.

        2. I know that no one has described how Meghan felt about this brooch. But they are assuming to know because they are upset with this brooch as if they are Meghan.
        And how do we know that Princess Michael was being insensitive? Just because the brooch was of a dark-skinned person and Meghan is half black? Stop selling insensitive pieces of art or jewelry then in this day and time. Should all the paintings come down in the palaces because some of them depict brown folks in positions of servitude and Meghan will be offended?

        3. No, you aren’t reading what I wrote wrong. If Princess Michael of Kent is upset about this half-black woman joining the RF then shouldn’t she be upset with Harry because that is who is marrying her and how she is joining the RF to begin with. Again, I said if. And if Princess Michael of Kent wanted to voice her opposition, would she say something to Harry? I say no because a white woman would probably not want to make a white man feel uncomfortable. Instead, she and other racist/biased people will attack Meghan instead.

        1. 2.) Yes.

          All. Of. Them.

          Keep in mind, it is NOT simply because of Meghan’s feelings that they should be removed.

          1. And while we’re discussing the removal of certain images of a time past that is viewed as racially insensitive:

            Why not return all the diamonds taken from Africa and India that the Queen still wears to this day since they were “acquired” by the the British during imperialism or colonialism and who knows if they were paid for or simply stolen. And no to mention what might have been done to the natives in order for Britain to “acquire” these diamonds.

            I mean, if we are trying correct all the wrongs of the past.

        2. 3.) Oh dear God. So…

          It’s Harry’s fault for daring to bring a woman of colour into his family? Because “can you imagine the *nerve*”?

          Wow. Just wow. I have nothing else to say to this.

          1. I have no problem whatsoever to whom Harry has decided to marry. None of us had a choice in the matter anyway.

            But since he is marrying a half-black woman people are up in arms over it even though she is a human being like him. To focus on race is petty, but since that’s the conversation, let’s talk about it.

            Let me say it again:
            If people have a problem with Meghan (i.e. Princess Michael) then be mad at or say something to Harry who if not for him we would not be discussing who is racist with a brooch because of who he is going to marry. But white people won’t make each other uncomfortable for fear of exposing to their own kind how they are.

            I didn’t say, how dare he or its his fault or he has the nerve to marry a half-black woman, but that’s what most people think, not me.

          2. If Princess Michael had worn the brooch and there was no Meghan Markle around to see it, it would still be offensive.

            But since Meghan *was* there, the wearing of said brooch is less likely to be excused as thoughtlessness. It seems intentional, so to speak.

            Meghan being there is not what makes this offensive, but it is what makes it malicious.

          3. The only reason why we are discussing that the brooch is offensive is because Meghan is around.

            Had Harry gotten engaged to Cressida and Princess Michael wore this brooch, no one would have said anything.

          4. Caligurl: “Had Harry gotten engaged to Cressida and Princess Michael wore this brooch, no one would have said anything.”


    2. For example, when white people bring up black actors or singers when they talk to you, as if that’s all you know is your own kind in entertainment, they try to relate to you is what I mean. So maybe Princess Michael thought, “Hey, I’ll wear this brooch because it’s black like Meghan, and she’ll feel welcome.” You never know.

      This is an extremely racist way of thinking so her wearing this brooch is offensive at least 2 different ways.

      1. This type of jewelry was made in the 18th century when slavery was accepted all around the world and this brooch is a fetishization of slaves. It is never acceptable to wear that brooch and it should be destroyed or put in a museum to remind people of the despicable things they have done to other humans.

        Also the Queen should return the jewels that were taken from India. Colonialism created huge problems all over the former British Empire, and the monarchy stole from the people who lived there before they decide to invade them.

        1. “Also the Queen should return the jewels that were taken from India. ”
          Big, big can of worms. If the monarchy is dissolved, should those jewels go back to the origin country? I’ve read debates for and against return. There is no easy answer as long as the monarchy exists.

          1. I’m with Grace on this point.

            There is the question of ownership which isn’t as clear cut as the returners think it is.

            All the countries of the Indus region can claim ownership because said jewels passed through various kingdoms that conquered their neighbours and looted the jewels from their conquered foes.

            Should we label all the conquering Kingdoms thieves who should return their spoils?

            If so then it’s not just the British who should return stuff. It’s all the European countries, and all modern western countries including the USA.

  50. Exactly, Cathy. I would advised those of you who receive your news exclusively from the Daily Mail, to understand that much is often left out of their stories. I suspect that their editor most likely does not have a lot of love for Ms Markle because she is known to be anti-Brexit. “The Dress Sxandal” was largely whipped up by the Mail. The story would have been nothing if their writer had simply included the fact that the dress was produced in 2016.

    However. as Other Julia and others have so blithely stated, Ms. Markle is clearly NOT British. She might be independently wealthy but she can never scream, “I am wealthy American and I have snagged your Most Eligible bachelor.” The Mail does not have to work so very hard, now do they? Seriously, and I very much am sincere, Other Julia, you are more Royal than the royal family. I think you would be a great advisor for Ms. Markle because at this point, I do not think she will be given a chance. It is quite sad. Anyway, the dress is rather vile, I am pleased she purchased it at great discount whilst she was an actor. Up next, again brought to us by the Mail, readers have already surmised the Ms Markle deliberately broke her dog’s legs. No words for this kind of hate.

    The more meaningful conversation that I read above, centred around Princess Micheal. I am most disappointed that MMR did not create a new section to discuss this most relevant issue as the UK addresses Brexit, immigration, Monarchy and the significance of Ms Markle. Most days I rue the advent of social media and the misinformation that often sprews from it. However, from Britain to Australia, users demanded that the press address PM’s brooch. I agree with whoever stated that PM was compelled to (weakly) apologise.

    As much as I enjoy the pageantry (among other things) about the BRF, the Queen surely understands that the only thing we can all be sure of is the passage of time. She is the leader of a changing Britain but she also leads the diverse Commonwealth. Thus, of course this horrifying brooch represents something bigger than just offending Mr. Markle. Lest us even consider Great Britain’s colonial past. I am confident that “The Firm” has been serious considering for many months the optics of the first ethnically diverse female becoming senior member of the BRF. The fact that publications across the world condemned even a minor member of the BRF for being the racist that she very much is in late 2017 is NOT a good British look. That brooch is compliment to No One. Other Julia, you might have to talk to the entire BRF about “the role,” in addition to being quietly wealthy, demur and non-black.

  51. I too feel that Meghan will never be given a chance by the press. They are out for her blood. It’s so sad and unfairl

    1. Be that as it may, she is giving them easy ammunition.

      It’s actually baffling considering her previous occupation. I thought she would be much more PR savvy than this.

      Btw, very few royals have done one huge mistake that turned the media or public against them. It’s always a series of tiny things that together add upto one big negative picture. Death by 1000 cuts so to speak.

      She’s not married yet and so far she’s abandoned a dog ( Britain is a nation of fanatical dog lovers), shown compkete misunderstanding of the institution of royalty with all that magical prince-ing talk in her engagement interview, OTT priced dress for the photos!!

      1. Yup, this.

        She is not making it easy on herself.

        I do think she believes she can just be bull in a china shop about it. Us Americans are very forthright… I doubt Harry gives her much education or help, honestly. Just like William wouldn’t help Kate, but not because Harry despises the institution, I think Harry just doesn’t think it’s a problem. Considering Harry’s letter any criticism of her and her behavior or actions will be deflected as racism or I’m protecting my girl from the evil media…

      2. I think the dog backlash is completely unfair. I own four rescue cats and I have friends who volunteer for dog rescue but I also know there are times when animals have to be rehomed. She brought one dog with her so I will give her the benefit of the doubt on why the second dog couldn’t make the move. Sometimes the fanatical dog lovers can come across as completely unhinged.

        As for the rest of it, I hope Meghan and Harry got pulled into a closed door meeting with some savvy advisors and given a thorough briefing on how to course correct going forward. I do wonder though if Harry likes that Meghan is a rule breaker and doesn’t want her to stop. It will make for interesting times ahead.

        1. I confess to being slightly unhinged on the subject of dogs but if you work for rescues you know one of the most difficult and frequent problems they have is keeping bonded pets together – pets don’t just miss their humans but also their canine companions – dogs especially because of the pack dynamic. Rescues work very hard on this and are often under pressure because people don’t want two dogs and want them to break up a pair. It can be a huge problem when an owner dies – We’ve tried to make plans to make certain our dogs would stay together if anything happened to us.

          From the photos released Guy and Bogart look to be a closely bonded pair – not uncommon when an owner is working or away a great deal. There are photos of them sleeping close together – rare unless the pets are bonded.

          I’ve seen pairs broken up when there has been a broken human relationship and it is not ideal but if that had been the given reason for leaving Bogart behind, that he was close to her former boyfriend – that is something I could accept. I just wish they would have Jason release and honest statement – I think there is a tissue of lies about when Meghan’s relationship with Harry began and the ambiguity is worse than the truth would be.

          I do think Jason has done a wretched job on all these issues but I’m not volunteering for the post. Royals don’t listen well (from what I hear that applies to all of them) and I think many of staff take the job solely for how it looks on a CV later. And historically the palace doesn’t give advice to newcomers – Diana and Sarah both complained about that – they were simply thrown in. I suspect that’s also true with both Kate and Meghan – making it easy for mistakes to happen, especially because I find both William and Harry clueless on public opinion.

          As for Guy, I don’t know what’s that’s about but hope he is well soon!!!!

          1. @The Other Julia
            I agree completely with your take re. Bogart. Just tell the truth and stop the gush. If the dog is with her ex-partner, so be it. Everyone knows Meghan went from Cory to Harry in no time flat so why pretend otherwise unless they are trying to rewrite M’s story as being innocently unattached. The dog was not old, nor infirm as far as we know. I feel for both dogs if they were closely bonded. I took my two rescue cats when they were elderly (12 and 16); they were companions to each other and their lives would have been diminished without the other.

          2. @Jen

            Ummm no; the dog isn’t a human being and Meghan’s ex is a private citizen and they shouldn’t mention him in official statements. People are overreacting regarding the dog situation; he’s not with her and that’s that. It doesn’t matter specifically who he is with.

        2. Gatita / Other Julia: the reality of the dog doesn’t matter.

          As they are using PR to tell us about their great love, they should have used PR to explain the dog.

          My advice to MM would have been to play up how much it broke her heart to leave him behind due to his age. Emphasise how much he is in a loving home, how much you miss him and are keeping in touch with his new owners.

          I mean she was already gushing about other aspects of her life and how much love was in the air, so might as well use that angle when talking about the dog.

          OR if you don’t want to discuss the dog, just say you miss him so much that it hurts to talk about him, and change subjects.

      3. Meghan was only officially introduced to the British public only 3 months ago. The general public is learning everything about her in a very short period of time, so any mistakes she makes play a bigger part in the picture since we have so little to go by.
        In that time we’ve had:

        Vanity Fair- mixed reception
        Invictus- positive reception
        Engagement photocall and interview- positive reception
        First engagement- positive reception
        Engagement photos- mixed reception

        The Vanity Fair interview was just pointless, she could have talked about Suits, her charity work, anything and just been vague about her personal relationship. Instead we got her announcing to the world that she and Harry are in love. Did did she gain anything with that interview?

        The engagement photos were just so tone deaf. If she had worn another less expensive dress this whole thing could have easily been avoided.

        The media wants to sell papers and get clicks, they will jump on anything remotely interesting and make several articles about one thing and milk it to death: One with the body experts, one with twitter reactions, one with an opinion piece, one about the clothes. Meghan is making it easy for them.

        1. +1.
          Plus leaving one of the dogs behind – poor reception in a nation of dog lovers. Better to be straight if the dog is now with her ex-partner rather than whitewash him (partner) away. People appreciate frankness plus the issue is dealt with.

      4. Herazeus, I appreciate your knowledgeable assessment of Meghan’s fashion choice here. Coincidentally, I just came upon an article by Vanessa Friedman, the fashion editor of the New York Times, who sees it as a conscious “statement” on Meghan’s part. I thought you might be interested in having a look. While she cites some individual negative reactions, she doesn’t seem to have the sense of cultural norms that you’ve brought to our attention here.

        Not only did she dutifully represent her country-to-be by wearing all British brands (sweater by Victoria Beckham, dress by Ralph & Russo), as opposed to the Canadian labels she has favored in the past, but she did so while simultaneously acknowledging the Cinderella nature of her romance, at least in the public mind, and breaking, ever so slightly, with tradition.

        She represents, simply by background, a completely different kind of royal. This has both raised expectations for reform and made traditionalists nervous. The engagement photo doesn’t shy away from either reaction; it underscores both. It also demonstrates that she is perfectly aware that everything she wears is going to be under the social media spotlight, so she might as well make it work for her.

        1. If she is making a conscious statement I wonder if it’s something she’s discussed with Harry. It would be extremely interesting if Meghan and Harry are consciously rattling the institution and don’t mind taking a short term PR hit in the process.

      5. Meghan did not abandon her dog. It is with others. This story has gotten out of hand and it’s ridiculous. She is not Cruella DeVille.

        1. Again, nuance is lost on you.

          It matters not a jot what happened to the dog.

          What matters is how she explained his absence and to a nation of dog lovers, the blithe way she explained it translated to abandonment of said dog.

        2. This is what gets talked about when there is no common knowledge of her background and activities two years ago. If the dog ‘left behind’ was actually more bonded to another person then so what? That’s all she has to say right now. The dog was more comfortable with a friend and my friend has taken the dog home. Friend is a private person and does not want to make any statement about the dog. Making up stories / excuses for the dog remaining in Canada was dopey. The current companion dog has been injured adding to drama about the dogs. Everybody stop about the dogs. Really. Not your problem. Nor your prerogative to judge why the arrangements were made. Yes, I’ve had 4 dogs in my life, all gone now. Every passing was a wrench.

          1. Totally agree with you Graceh, people are taking this dog thing to a whole new level which it totally unnecessary. Meghan did not awe anyone anymore explanation than she did, dog loving nation or not. These are her dogs, she made the decisions she felt were best for her dogs and owes no one no more explanations than the satisfactory enough answer she gave to the dog question, move on y’all. The rest of the world has.

        3. Please don’t reply to me about the dogs.
          I’m done writing about the dogs.
          It is a tempest in a teapot.

          1. GraceH: to whom are you addressing your comment? Leah or me?

            If it was me, i wasn’t addressing you, and this is the first time i’ve addressed the dog issue.

            Further, i’ve addressed only the problematic PR aspects of how MM addressed it.

            As i said in earlier comments, it matters not a jot what happened to the dog. And you are 100% right that she doesn’t have to go chapter and verse into what happened to the dog.

            However, as the subject was put to her, she should have come up with a better explanation. One that didn’t imply negative outcome.

            And my dismay is that she is making these easy PR blunders which in itself is a surprise given her expertise in PR as a necessity of her former profession. And this will be remembered even if you personally don’t care about it.

          2. Sorry I read this yr post too late Graceh, I shouldn’t have responded. Accept my apologies please and merry Christmas to you too.

  52. Dear Herazeus, Having been raised and educated on three different continents, including Europe, which currently encompasses Britain, I hardly need your educational assistance to know that Britain is a “dog-loving country.” In fact, I have grown quite weary of your patronising posts. Please try to rein in. We all know by now, that you are cleaver and well read, as are many of the international subcripers who follow this blog. Your Shakespeare references are a wonderful touch.

Comments are closed.