Harry & Meghan to visit Reprezent

Harry & Meghan to visit Reprezent

Kensington Palace announced the first appearance of the year for Prince Harry and Meghan Markle last week.

The couple will visit Reprezent 107.3FM in Brixton on January 9, this Tuesday, to see their work supporting young people through creative training in radio and broadcasting, and to learn more about their model of using music, radio, and media for social impact.

This news is a week old at this point, but I wanted to have an open post type article up for the week because I’m not entirely sure whether I will be able to cover this engagement this week due to personal issues. So if I cannot cover Harry and Meghan’s engagement this week in a timely fashion, this is your open post for that engagement and any other topics you wish to discuss.

449 thoughts on “Harry & Meghan to visit Reprezent

  1. I love to see your posts – hope you are “on the mend” – will look out for Daily Fail and RD to see what the impressions are

  2. I hope you are feeling better now. Take care.
    There have been various stories in the media about Meghan and her family. She seems to have had a good Christmas at Sandringham, but her brother has been in an altercation with his wife. There were also reports that Meghan’s mother would walk her down the aisle, but now the father says that he will. The reception will not be at Frogmore, as she wants, but at St George’s Hall.

    1. I’m disappointed about Frogmore, though of course we don’t really know what their choices were, because I think it’s a gorgeous place that underused. Though it wasn’t as if they were going to invite is, or even release photos.

      MMR, thanks for all you do,and feel better quickly.

      1. Do we even know the Frogmore story is true? This is the Daily Fail who reported it. Also, why was Peter Phillips, allowed to have his reception at Frogmore and Meghan and Harry can’t. Something doesn’t add up.

      2. If H&M fill out the 800 capacity of St George’s chapel, then Frogmore is too small a wedding reception venue.

        Frogmore was once a private home so it’s ballroom can hold a small wedding reception like Peter’s wedding, but it can’t accomodate 800people.

        Personally i’d give my left eye to host my wedding in Windsor Castle. It is amazing inside. George 4 did a splendid job updating and furnishing it. It’s a jewel box of a castle. The best of all the castles and Palaces.

        Actually, screw weddings, just lock me up in there. I’d be in heaven forever.

        1. It sounds like the stories of Kate and her flower crown but the mean grey men made her wear a tiara. Of course they’ll use St George’s Hall. Or the Waterloo Ballroom.

          1. The funniest thing about the waterloo chamber is that George 4 refurbished it as a celebration of the heroes of the Napoleonic wars……with himself as the central figure of victory. Nevermind that he never ever went to war and the portrait of himself that was made for the chamber shows the opposite of what the real George looked like.


            In recent years they’ve moved portraits and added other people, but the entire thing was George’s self congratulatory fantasy.

            One thing about George, he might have been the most reviled POW and King in constitutional British monarchs, but my goodness he was an amazing designer. He really had the talent (and money) for it.

    2. Megan’s half siblings have world all their own going on that unfortunately they want to drag her into. Her sister is really beginning to grate my nerves. She seems like she never cared for Meghan and now is taking the opportunity to try and shame her publicly because she can.

      1. I hope those awful step siblings are NOT welcome at the wedding. I’m sure the sister will show up anyway to trash talk and try to cash in- people like that thinks it’s their due, ugh.

      2. Both her half sister and brother are annoying the crap out of me. Did you hear her half brother saying that her marrying Prince Harry is why he and his fiancé got into a physical altercation? The only person responsible for ones actions are themselves. And her half sister is now fighting with royal reporters on Twitter because they get paid to write sorties/take pictures of royals has me lol. But refusing to answer if she’s ever been paid for a story.

        1. ‘Both her half sister and brother are annoying the crap out of me.’
          Julia + a bazillion

          Tom Junior using Harry and Meghan’s relationship as the reason for the fight with his partner is a corker.

          Meghan’s half siblings are a pair of transparent fools. No wonder she doesn’t have anything to do with them.

    3. The tabloids are all just noise. It is better to not take them serious at all since they are often wrong.

  3. Thank you so much MMR, get well soon, I look forward to reading your post about Prince Harry and Meghan next engagement tomorrow , hopefully!
    Royals Fans are already very excited to see the royal couple in Brixton.

  4. I am glad fans are excited. It has been a very busy morning on Twitter. A royal reporter took a very nasty dig at Meghan today and Twitter has been up in arms.

    It is very obvious the royal reporters and the press don’t care one whit for Meghan.

      1. https://twitter.com/SkyRhiannon/status/950416835727458304

        It was very nasty and unnecessary. It was not necessary to bring up Meghan at all. Why are you comparing a child and a grown woman? And when this reporter gets ripped a new one and rightfully so, she plays victim.

        Also, a news anchor in England says that the Markle family has gotten a talking to by the royal household and they will start toeing the line. We shall see.

          1. Like I said, why are you comparing Meghan and Charlotte and basically saying Meghan is nothing next to Charlotte. One is a toddler, the other a grown woman. Why do you need to put Meghan down to compliment Charlotte?

          2. Nothing’s wrong with the tweet. Apparently anything that is not coated in sugar about Meghan is negative.

        1. “It was very nasty and unnecessary. It was not necessary to bring up Meghan at all. Why are you comparing a child and a grown woman?”

          Leah, literally hours ago you posted on KMR agreeing with the nasty and unnecessary comments about a child needing to be taught how to close her legs. It was not necessary to critique the way a two year old sits. Why were YOU judging a child as if she was a grown woman?


          1. I was agreeing more with the Kate part of the comment than the Charlotte part. I was not judging Charlotte, I was agreeing with what was said about Kate and if you go back and look, that is exactly what pretty much said. But I appreciate you calling me out. Have a nice night.

        2. It was intended to be humorous, not malicious.

          Meghan is the BRF woman of the hour. Who could upstage her? Oh look! A cute little girl.

          Just a joke. Not particularly funny, but harmless.

    1. I don’t think it’s a personal dig on Meghan, it’s just a result of a patriarchal society. That’s why 70 yr old men are paired with 32 yr old female costars. She compares a 36yr to a child implying that the child would usurp her position but we also know that no one would compare George’s cuteness to PH because men are valuable to society no matter the age and women are apparently not.

    1. If they didn’t announce it beforehand, no there will not be a walkabout. Harry often does unofficial ones if people are outside waiting to see him, but since one was not announced I doubt we will see many people waiting for them besides random passerbys who stop for the curiosity.

  5. But they didn’t announce a walkabout for Nottingham either or was it assumed there would be one. Is Reprezent Radio in an area where a large amount of people can gather?

  6. Poor Meghan. With her new profile there is no chance that the magazines won’t write or exaggerate everything her family does. Hope they will be more discreet in the future.
    I hope with her experience from castings and as a celebrity she has grown a thick skin and can shrug it off.

    1. It happens to people Meghan’s not the only one. What worries me is that both sides of her family have sold stories and pictures, old friends, and her ex-husband now is pitching a show based on this situation. Who did she piss off to have so many people out for her.

      1. The person who sold info to the press on her mom’s side is an ex uncle who married Meghan’s blood aunt. He is now divorced from the aunt.

        Why blame Meghan for what her family is doing? Why is this her fault? Why did Meghan have to do something to piss off her family for this to happen? Why again, are you shaming Meghan for something out of her control? I mean, I get it, anything to paint Meghan in a horrible light, but the truth is, some people have horrible families. It’s just how it is. Just like how a lot of in-laws are terrible or there is some sort of conflict.

        Samantha’s mom calls her a liar and a horrible person. Samantha’s kids won’t talk to her. To me that says a ton.

        If you, I or anyone else won the lotto or got famous or was going to marry a Prince, bet your bottom dollar, people would come out of the woodwork. Where there is money to be made, people get shady real quick.

        And from what it sounds like to me, the dysfunction on the paternal side of Meghan’s family seemed to have started from the beginning when Thomas and Doria married.

        I refuse to blame Meghan for the actions of her family, who are grown people.

        I find it very interesting that all of this info is coming from the paternal side, while the maternal side, with the exception of Meghan’s married in uncle, have been silent. And that uncle may have an axe to grind with Meghan’s aunt, his ex wife or even Doria.

        Does anyone know if Meghan’s maternal grandmother is still alive?

        1. The same logic used against the sister is the same one I’m using for Meghan. If the sister’s family say she is horrible and are not on good terms with her and it is a reflection of her. Then the same logic holds for Meghan, all these people (friends and family) coming out the woodworks to speak against her speaks to something she has done as well. I don’t recall this uncle by marriage information. The dailymail article clearly states he’s her blood uncle.

          Joseph, 68, his sister Saundra, 65, and Meghan’s mother Doria, 61, were raised by their single mother, Jeanette.

          She divorced both her first husband Joseph Johnson (father to Joseph and Saundra) and Doria’s dad Alvin Ragland.

          ‘Meghan was raised in a household of strong women because there were no men on the scene,’ her uncle said.

          Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5139821/Meghan-Markles-family-share-intimate-private-photo-album.html#ixzz53febpPlH
          Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

          1. My bad on that thinking it is her uncle by marriage only. My argument still stands. I do not blame Meghan for her family. None of us have perfect families and very few families can stand up to public scrutiny.

            Nor will I side eye Meghan for the actions of her family. Again not her fault and I do not see how anyone can hold Meghan accountable unless they are looking for reasons to dislike the woman, which I think is the case here.

            And to be honest, we don’t know Meghan’s side. What we know is the side that Meghan’s no account family told to a notoriously racist and nationalistic tabloid that is dead set against Meghan. A tabloid that recently splashed the headline about Meghan “I Have a Niggling Feeling About this Engagement.”

            If that doesn’t tell you all you need to know, then consider this, according to the Daily Beast, a tabloid editor in England is thrilled that Meghan’s family is so “forthcoming.”

            These tabloids have an agenda and I am not buying into it. So do most royal reporters, several of whom said very nasty things about Meghan and quickly changed once the engagement was announced.

            And it is not everyone in Meghan’s life that has spoken against her. You have several people that have made a lot of noise. It bothers me more that they will sell out a family for a few bucks. That says more about their character than Meghan.

  7. I am more concerned with the press than I am her family.

    How far in advance are engagements set up?

  8. Emily, thank you for the article. I have always thought that at some point, Meghan and Harry would visit minority neighborhoods as a reflection of Meghan’s background. And that is not a bad thing.

    But I understand why Brixton locals would be conflicted. The problem is, one of them, is that apparently, Brixton is not a place royals visit often and shame on them.

    But I think this is a good start. Meghan says she wanted to know all the communities in the UK and Brixton is vastly different from Nottingham.

    1. Brixton has been historically ‘urban’ however has gone under an era of gentrification so it’s not like it was in the past. Also, the article states that the royals have actually visited the borough many times including HM and Camilla.

    1. Yes, she wore trousers! And hair pulled back! I like her coat, but it looks a little big, though it was hard to tell in the photos.

  9. She is wearing trousers and she looks utterly beautiful. The crowds are cheering them which I haven’t see at a Royal engagement in a long time and the crowds are huge.

    1. Thank you MRSBBV for the *insider* info. You read so many negative comments, it makes many of us Americans think the U.K. dislikes Meghan, and are not happy about the engagement. They sure look happy!

      1. I think the Daily Mail and it’s readership doesn’t like Meghan. Don’t let them be your barometer of U.K. opinion. From what I can see many, many people are mesmerised and energised by her too.

      2. @G, I have come to realize that the negativity online does NOT necessarily represent the entire British population. I myself was very wrong a few days back when I came on here and painted the entire British people with a very broad brush based on a few posters’ comments about Meghan’s dogs, I stand corrected. With that examination of myself, with the acknowledgement that online posters are a mixture of people from all corners of the earth and with the realization that one person can’t be loved nor hated by all (translation of a saying from my language) I no longer take the online negativity serious at all. There’s more to the BRF and to the British population in general than we giving them credit for. If online posters were a survey, the few posters on here or on the DM do not generalize the entire British population at all!!

      3. How beautiful to see people so happy to be near this loving couple. Meghan shows a genuine interest in people. Harry has always done that. She does hold onto him, but who can blame her? This is all so new and must be overwhelming to her. There is a photo of his hand on her arm and it says so much. How he loves her and is protective of her, without being too much. This couple really do seem to care deeply for each other. I pray that things will always be good for them, but sometimes, one worries. People are mean and you just hope Meghan and Harry won’t be treated poorly by the media and some very nasty people.

    2. Meghan looks gorgeous in the photos!

      Love her hairstyle, guess what I’m going to be practicing at home tonight?

      As for someone saying the coat looked big? Winter coats are meant to be able to take clothes (a shirt or a jumper etc) underneath and aren’t meant to be skin tight.

      Love all of Meghan’s look at this engagement, and of course her best accessory (if I can dare to say it) is her beautiful smile and her very happy fiancé.

      1. Yes to the winter coat sizing!! Remember this was a coat she had from before the engagement, and has been seen wearing it in Toronto. So she probably would want to be able to wear a thick sweater under it!! I live in MN and I always by winter coats that fit well when I have multiple layers on because I know otherwise I’d freeze for a large portion of the year. Meghan is just being practical on this one.

    1. I had a pop up on my iPad that CTV News was also showing footage live of their arrival. Normally they reserve that for when royals are actually in Canada.

  10. Interesting that the DM photos show a patchy crowd and the Sky News live footage shows a large crowd. 🙄

  11. She’s wearing trousers!! I love them!! Edit maybe it’s a jumper?? Idk I haven’t had coffee yet, but either way I love it. Love her heals! I’m glad to see she’ll wear her hair up. But I do not like how it’s done today. It looks like a messy bun from the first couple of pictures I’ve seen. I hope she gets a better hairstylist. What’s your guys opinion on her hair? Have you seen any good pictures of it?

    1. Love the pants!! From what I’ve seen on instagram I agree about the hair. Which is ironic because I wear a messy bun everyday to work lol I think it could be done a little nicer. I do like that she mixes up her hairstyles.

    2. Love the trousers and the heels, but the hair looks a bit messy. A sleek pony would work and keep her hair tidy.

      I am starting to see a trend with her neutral coats. Some color soon!

      In Meghan’s defense, I just noticed I purchased a second top this morning, from the same brand (similar style) and in (oh, goodness sake) blue. Excuse me, I need to go slap myself.

    1. At least half of my wardrobe is neutrals, but I’m not on the world stage with a large budget. Although I did just notice she recycled this coat!

  12. This is my first time commenting here, though I’ve been following. I just started to comment on KMR.
    I love Meghsn’s outfit. It’s nice to see her in trousers. A very classic, professional look. I agree about her hair, though. I liked it up, but it was a bit messy.

    1. I’m new to commenting on both too 😊 I wonder if it was windy there? That may have contributed to it looking messy?

      1. I think she may have been trying for a bun with some pieces loose to frame her face, but the pieces were too long and weren’t styled so it just fell flat. I hope she continues to play around with her hairstyles though.

  13. I love the whole look. Bravo! And yay for crowds cheering! Meghan is wearing a top from Marks&Spencer.

    She has worn the coat before, in her private life.

  14. I also like how Meghan took her coat off once inside and didn’t like she wanted to bolt straightaway.

  15. I love Meghan’s look – the fact she’s wearing Canadian brands, the fact she’s wearing trousers and a M & S jumper, the great way she wears scarves. She’s making her own identity in dress. Those are great courts. The messy knot is different but it does suit her and her smile is radiant.

    Outside, she still seems distracted by all around her – it has to be both exciting and difficult but she’s got the royal wave down. Yes, I’m an old fuddy but I could do without the constant ‘loved up’ behaviour- I believe they’re in love – they don’t need to prove it Hollywood style. (But know many will disagree here and that’s fine.)

    Inside, Meghan seemed very engaged and much more natural. That’s where she really seems to shine – Harry too. It looks like it was a great engagement and I love all the signs people had. There was great energy with the crowds.

    1. Yes! In agreement with everything you’ve just said, The Other Julia.

      Both Harry and Meghan looked wonderful – wardrobe, smiles and all (perhaps my eyes are deceiving me, but I think I am even seeing a fuller head of hair on Prince Harry?).

      TROUSERS!! A smart pair of trousers! I have been dying for years to see Kate embrace this look. Anytime you can channel your inner Queen Letizia, I say go for it!

    2. In one of the videos she turned around to wave because the crowd called out her name. The crowds seemed fairly large too. The BRF are not unhappy with the increased popularity of these two.

      1. Yeah, the crowd was very big today. I don’t think the BRF are unhappy and it is a welcome injection of relevance for them.

    3. Meghan’s behavior just screams actress, when she’s in front of the cameras. Clinging to Harry. Blowing a kiss it looked like? She was warm and engaged with the public but it’s a bit too much the posing, I think. I agree, it is too much and seems try-hard. Not really royalty appropriate I guess.

      Praise God a royal lady who wears feckin’ trousers.

      Harry must have been styled by Meghan, he’s dressing much better.

      1. Lizzie
        I agree with all of your comment about Meghan’s behaviour in front of the cameras.
        To me, she plays to the camera.
        And yet she doesn’t need to.
        I know Meghan must be beyond excited but she needs to relax and tone it down a wee bit.

  16. There’s something very special about Meghan. She has “it”! Let’s hope the RF recognizes what Meghan brings to the table.

  17. I think it was windy there.
    Meghan looks great. I would like to see her wear some more color. Red is a good color for her.

  18. Lovely trousers, nice M&S jumper, beautiful smile! They both looked really happy and engaged with the people they met. Meghan was beaming! Not keen on the messy bun, but she looked appropriate for the event.

  19. It makes me so happy that she wore pants! This is perfection to me, I hope she keeps it up with the modern, professional stylishness!! And she still has that happy glow that she did at the first public event she did 🙂

    1. All this talk of ‘pants’ is making me giggle. The woman wasn’t showing her underwear which we Brits call pants, so repeated use of the word by American commentors is making me do a double take and a readjustment to realise they mean trousers.

  20. The little wave and smile before going in was so cute!! You could tell she was excited and in awe of it.

  21. Great outing for Harry and Meghan! I thought she looked really good and I was even amused by the fact that it looked like she just put her hair up in a knot and that was the end. So happy to see her wearing slacks as well. If her stylist advised her to look business casual it was a good call, as it made her very approachable. I think that even though she is used to being in the spotlight as an actress, that she does cling to Harry a bit because she may be nervous, especially when she is holding his hand and grasping his arm at the same time. I think they will always be a tactile couple but at some point it will ease up a bit as she gets used to being in the BRF.

    1. “She does cling to Harry a bit because she may be nervous” +100.
      She looked almost in awe for lack of a better word today when the crowds were cheering for her so lound that Harry ended up telling her to wave at them.

    2. BostonBrahmin,
      Having watched and re-watched their videos, I’m beginning to think that her holding onto Harry’s arm is a combo of 2 things.1) nerves and 2) attempt to slow him down to sort of match her female high-heel pace.

  22. From the video clip I saw of them both I thought they did rather well. Even the people they were meeting had lovely smiles and looked like they were happy to meet Meghan and Harry. There was no awkwardness.
    I liked Meghan’s style of hair. It was up and I hope Meghan continues mixing hairstyles.
    Also the trouser suit was a good choice and the scarf with the coat was a good touch. Harry’ jumper was actually ok and it was a good fit.

    1. not surprised.

      On another note, I have noticed several royal reporters, including Victoria Arbiter’s dad and Ingrid Seward, have chosen to ignore Harry and Meghan’s event and wished Kate a happy bday instead.

      1. Perfectly fine. Some Royal Reportes will follow Kate others will follow Meghan. I don’t understand why anyone would be offended. New Royal Reporters will fill the void Leah…give it Time!

      2. Most of those you mentioned are very traditional court reporters so I imagine they will ignore most things until she married Harry. Only the truly exceptional will arouse comment from them I imagine. But Mr. Arbiter is very fond of Harry so don’t be thinking it’s a slight, Mr Arbiter is ‘old school’ especially having worked for both HMTQ and Diana. Xx

        1. Mr. Arbiter also said Meghan was only a fling. He had to backtrack and was none too pleased.

          Ingrid does not like Meghan and is very condescending, always pointing out that Meghan is American and implying that being American ways are beneath British ways.

          1. Ingrid condescends everyone, even the British and Mr. Arbiter belongs to another age and generation. His daughter has written very positively about Meghan but then she works and lives in the US. and probably can see the positivity that Meghan can bring to the RF, more so than her father.

    2. Why is it such a taboo to have the BRF on social media? Why can’t they have their own Twitters, Instagrams and Facebooks? Madeleine and Victoria have their own Facebooks.

      1. I don’t get that either. I’d love it! And I feel it would probably help their image by making the more relatable. I’m going to regret say this but: they want to have normal lives… well social media is part of normal life! 😂

          1. And like I said, Victoria and Madeleine have their own Facebook pages. Andrew has a twitter. So, what is the big deal?

      2. I think Victoria is an oppotunist, to be honest and goes with the flow so she can get on tv. I could be wrong, but I don’t think Victoria liked Meghan in the beginning.

    3. I knew they’d shut her social media accounts down early in the year. Her instagram was a good way for people to get a [curated} sense of who Meghan is: fun, happy, friendly, well travelled, ambitious, enjoys work, friends and her love for her family (those whom she still maintains relationships with). soon they will close google page search of her family and friends.

      1. All the social media are like Facebook- they publish what they want you to see, blissful, perfect and apsirational. In the olden days, gossip columnists and tabloids and magazines had the same purpose. It’s not like it’s really real.

  23. She looked good. LOVE that she wore trousers!!!! I actually love the hair too, it was effortlessly cute. The crowds were so excited and Meghan looked happy, it made me smile.

  24. Loved her outfit, she looks great!! I’d wear everything – from the wide leg dressy trousers to the longish coat and the scarf 🙂

    Shout out to Harry – yay for a green jacket!

    1. I’d wear it too! I didn’t love the Nottingham outfit but this one I was all over. I practically have the same black sweater and pants!

  25. Meghan looked nice, looked appropriate. After the execrable, ugly jeggings on Kate for so many years her trousers look extra good. Harry looked so casual, too. The honeymoon period with the public when it comes to royal doings is always freaking exciting. It’s like a fairy tale! Can’t wait for the wedding. The tiara! And after that….dun dun dun ;).

    1. The pants were one of my first thoughts. Trousers! On a royal female! I thought she looked so chic. And I loved how excited she was when those little girls asked her about the wedding; the mom said she kind of squealed. I love that she’s so excited. I remember feeling that same giddiness.

      1. It’s not a big deal to see trousers on a royal female. Meanwhile Meghan is not yet a royal female.

    2. Yeah, re the pants. Take notes, Kate, this is how it is DONE. Hopefully, she falls into her copy cat ways and burns her jeggings and her wedges.

        1. I’m new here but your comments about Kate have an edge of real meanness. You can dislike her and be critical without being mean. I’m no a fan of Kate but honestly it’s ab it much. You are however not alone in that attitude. Lots of meanness directed towards both Kate and Meghan.

  26. I noticed that the official who greeted Meghan and Harry curtsied to Harry, but not Meghan-I didn’t expect her to curtsy to Meghan.. But strictly speaking, if she has curtsied to Meghan, would the official have been wrong?

    1. Yes……Strictly speaking not until after they are married and even then it’s entirely her choice.

    2. She officially would have been totally wrong to curtsey to her. Meghan is a commoner at this point. The fact that Megahn, an American, and an independent citizen, curtseyed to the queen when she didn’t have to left me rather taken aback. But yeah, no curtseys to Meghan until she is married and becomes Princess Harry at the very least. I wouldn’t be curtseying to her, the queen or anyone else, even as a member of the Commonwealth. Seriously? (rhetorical)

      1. I don’t think I would curtesy to anyone who wasn’t blood Royal these days even after marriage.

        I would the RF and I would have to Diana even though she wasn’t blood born mainly out of sheer respect for her. But if I’m honest I think I would curtesy to Camilla too. But not the next generation of non royal by birth if that makes sense?

        It’s a bit of a minefield these days as I see it more as a gesture of respect as opposed to deference. HMTQ…..no question about it. As low and meaningful as I could manage and I think the fact that Meghan did was so lovely. It was almost her saying ‘I’m going to do everything I can to fit in and be one of you’.

        1. I hear ya, Mrs BBV. I was born in England, lived my childhood there, it is still my heart home, but as a Canadian, nope and no (and even if I were living back home), it isn’t gonna happen. Especially to married-ins, NEVER. But I do understand the salute of respect to the big cheese, which is all, IMO, that the BRF can hope for now, though even then I couldn’t do it. I just imagine curtseying to Kate or Maghan and get wiggly- it’s ludicrous.

          Would you curtsey to William? I cringe at the thought.

          1. That’s the point really Maven…..I couldn’t possibly curtsey to Kate (she’s a middle class girl and therefore my equal) and I could not curtsey to Meghan as she’s not British born. And yes before everyone erupts in horror I’m not criticising her in anyway. But curtesy is about my place in relation to my RF, not their spouses.

            William is a tricky one because he doesn’t have my respect for him as a man but as my future king he does and the son of Diana he does. And Harry I would out of respect to Diana.

          2. I wouldn’t do it, Mrs BBV, but I do understand and respect your reasoning. :curtseying to Mrs BBV:

        2. Made me think of my mother, age 11, who had to greet my grandmother’s entire art club at the door, and curtsey to each one. I only had to curtsey to Madame after every ballet class. Different world.

          1. That’s kinda neat, Fifi. Fab anecdote. Formally showing respect for others has rather gone by the wayside. I think of that as a mindfulness exercise. I certainly wouldn’t have minded.

        3. I wonder about this. I think I would curtsy to HMTQ, the DoE, Charles and Camilla. The rest, I don’t think so. I can’t take them seriously enough to offer that gesture of respect…

  27. Yeah #TeamPants! I love her whole look and I am so happy she wore pants. I think she killed this engagement from all points. More of this, please.

    1. Agreed……polished, consummate but with a very human touch. Her energy and excitement is palpable. If she can deliver this going forward it will be so exciting. I don’t care what anyone says……I absolutely adore her.

      1. I’m already praying for no hairnets. There’s an article on MSN about Meghan’s royal hair faux pas today, blah blah blah. She was visiting a radio station and is still in her 30s. It wasn’t like she was shaking hands with a head of state and posing for formal photos.

        1. I saw that too! It said she was breaking protocol 🤦🏼‍♀️ Really? This is why the rest of the world hates us (Americans) lol I was annoyed with that article and the fact I read it. Ugh.

          1. Don’t worry, the DM (British) has an article about Meghan’s hair too and how she needs help from Kate’s hairdresser now, lol.

            Both are just tabloids creating any fluffy articles that they think their readers will like. But I do find it interesting that some of the media is outright criticizing her at times when they were all sugar with Kate after the engagement (at least that I remember).

          2. Liza, you are not wrong. I remember there being nothing but praise for Kate during the engagment period.

    2. Aaaagh all this talk of pants. Pants are underwear here, and fortunately we don’t actually know if Meghan wears pants coz we’ve had no fly ups. If she’s going to wear them Meghan will have to learn tosay trousers 😀😀

      The ‘English’ language never ceases to amuse me.

      1. I’m American and I have always said pants. We don’t say trousers here and if we do, it’s used to refer only to men. My grandparents and old people are the only people I ever knew who used that term. It’s archaic, like from a 1940s movie.

        My grandma even said slacks and no one says that anymore. I hate the word trousers.

        Just like I hate the word “jumper.” We call them sweaters.

        1. “Trousers” is not archaic, Leah. It’s just a cultural difference in vocabulary. Just like “jumper”.

          Have you any idea of how insulting you come across, as if the Ugly American actually was a fact and you embodied it?

          1. “Have you any idea of how insulting you come across, as if the Ugly American actually was a fact and you embodied it?”

            You read my thoughts.

          2. “I meant to say it is archaic in America.”

            Nuh, uh, Leah. You meant to denigrate the words ‘”trousers” and “jumper”. They are not archaic at all, even in America. Your comments still make you look like the “Ugly American” with a tone of contempt for anything not American.

          3. I call them pants. I’ve heard many in America refer to them as Trousers, and I know what they mean, and I have not a nit to pick however they are called.

          4. Look, I’m no huge fan of Leah’s commenting style and her and I have butt heads on KMR, but I find it very interesting how reproachful (read: sanctimonious) you are of other commenters who use (sometimes vaguely) insulting language when they vehemently disagree with you or commenters whose opinions you share, yet here you are repeatedly referring to Leah as an “Ugly American”. Maybe take this opportunity to reflect on your own behaviour on these blogs. The hypocrisy is astounding.

        2. I rarely say “trousers” but I do still say “slacks.” Maybe a southern thing? The majority of the time I just say “pants.”

          1. It’s not an American thing, Meghan. It’s cultural. The focus is on the BRITISH. Americana is irrelevant here.

          2. Maven, DO NOT tell me what I did and did not mean to say. I just told you how I meant to say it, but my mistake, I did not make myself clear.

            You don’t know me, so don’t condescend to me or put words in my mouth. As a matter of fact, from here on out, do me the honor of not addressing me at all.

            Thank you. How dare you!

          3. I never use slacks – to me slacks are what old men wear – machine washable, perma-creased, usually baggy, bought from a catalogue, and the sort of thing my Mum used to wear in the 70’s, she had a particularly hideous orange pair that she felt were very trendy, even though being nylon they had shrunk in the wash and the shoes she wore with them….oh dear, I must not speak ill of the dead, Mother dearest. But other Brits do still use the word I am sure. I use trousers for men’s trousers (suits ) and smart women’s, then jeans for ….well jeans obviously, but I wouldn’t call jeans trousers, and then my sons wear chinos which are smart casual trousers!

            Having started this debate with my first comment about ‘pants’ I would just have to say that yet more personal attacks are just unnecessary and do not elevate the tone of this blog for anybody. Can we please follow Mrs BBV’s suggestion and not attack individuals? this is not directed at any individual on either side of the discussion, just a general overall observation for peace and enjoyment.

          4. Maven, I’m not understanding the hostility. I never said anything negative about UK English…?

        3. I’m American and I say trousers. Could be cultural on my part with British grandparents (well, Scots!) as I’ve always also used jumper for sweater. People think I’m a weirdo but it just sounds more correct to me. I use pants, too, but pants is interchangeable with underwear to me…

          1. LOL!

            Ellie, this my confused life. Thanks for nailing it.

            I still remember “bathing costume” for ‘swimsuit’. All these words and their morphs rock!

          2. I feel you.

            My husband makes fun of me when I ask about trousers. Or when I tell him, “No. Pants are your boxers, dude.” Because of course as a California girl I say ‘dude’ far, far too much… everything and everyone is dude… even inanimate objects…

          3. AO thank you…she’s got a lot to learn. But a sidewalk is not a path it is a pavement.

            And then once she’s met a unicorn and a dragon we can introduce her to a haggis……

        4. I’m American, and I call myu DRESS pants trousers or slacks. My sisters, mom, and I all use them interchangeably. I guess it’s because my mom spent so much time in Europe or working with Europeans for business that it some of their English vocab wore off on all of us. But like jeans I just call pants, never slacks or trousers.
          Question for the UK readers jeans are much more casual the slacks/trousers, do you call them something different then dress pants. Like for me it’s jeans/pants vs trousers/slacks?

      2. Hahaha Birdy! Here we call them underwear/undies, panties (for girls/women, though that word is one that is like nails on a chalkboard to me), britches, underoos (anyone remember Underoos???). English really is a funny language!

        1. My grandma said britches, again, a Southern term, I think and again archaic, here in America.

          Oh yes, “panties” is like the word “moist” nails on a chalkboard for sure.

        2. It is funny how so many words are different in Britain than the U.S.
          Jumpers here are sleeveless dresses that are made to be teamed with blouses, or “sweaters” underneath. I so like the word trousers. Especially, for dress slacks. The term pants suit, which was coined decades ago, when women started wearing those outfits to work, must sound so odd to Brits. A woman going to work in her Undergarments below and a jacket above? Yikes.

          1. Yes! When I hear “jumper” I think a plaid private school getup over a white polo shirt. LOL

      3. My vocabulary has increased a little, due to this site. Lots of British terms we never use here in the US. Bespoke, sartorial, natty, and pants to name a few. Two nations divided by a common language. I love learning little things like this.

    3. As a Britisher #TeamPants is absolutely hilarious! I’m all for #TeamTrousers but I’m in no hurry to see any pants (or no pants, Kate) from the BRF!

  28. No disrespect to anyone, but I’m missing the fuss re: MM’s outfit.

    She dressed like many an American career woman. Head to toe black is pretty de rigueur in many US professional workplaces.

    1. That’s what I loved……she’s dressing in such an understated way the clothes are just clothes and not part of the ‘performace’. It’s almost as if she saying my clothes are just not important but who I meet, what we say and what I’m doing is what you should be writing about. After years of only having clothes to talk about I’m enjoying talking about her.

    2. Agreed, Garnet, there is nothing to fuss about. She looks okay and therefore there’s really nothing to talk about.

    3. I loved it because she looks natural. She hasn’t gone from stylish and natural to buttoned up to the chin with hairnets and looking 20-30 years older than she is (yet, but I’m hoping this never happens). She looks comfortable and that extended into her demeanor with those she visited today. It’s fantastic.

    4. This head to toe black was effortlessly chic, gorgeously understated but expensive. She was making a statement with that outfit and that “oh, this old bun? I twisted that up with a single bobby pin lurking in my coat pocket 10 seconds before we got out of the car” bun- couldn’t have been a more perfect complement to it.

    5. That’s why I love it so much. I could and would wear this outfit. Although being a college student I’d go for cheaper brands with the same result and look great for when I need a business casual/business outfit.

  29. I wonder if after the engagement pic dress brouhaha the couple was told to reign it in until after the wedding. My guess would be that she will be very neutral in speech and dress at any appearance before then. After that it’ll be back to the luxury labels. I don’t think she’ll be able to resist. That being said, I definitely like her style!

    1. I liked Meghan’s style today as well.
      Except for her coat. I didn’t like the lapels.
      Harry’s coat on the other hand is very smart.

    2. Back to luxury labels, Meghan has always been low/high and very casual borderline messy in her look. She wears luxury but has never been a slave to it and mixes it up.

      1. Very true Mimibobimi. That may prove to be true. But previously she didn’t have the full access to what she does now so she mixed it up. I guess that’s why I see the engagement dress choice more as a “tell” as to what kind of lifestyle she is going to ascribe to. She went full hog with that choice. She has networked and worked for years to cultivate advantageous relationships and I don’t think it’s coincidence she has ended up with a guy who can place her at the pinnacle of power, money and fame. I’m willing to bet she will avail herself to all it can give her. Just my two little cents.

        1. And just to be clear, I like Meghan’s casual look a lot- like her being papped in Toronto going to yoga, or getting on and off planes. Polished and pulled together. I think her makeup and hair are pretty much always on point. I liked Kate’s too in the dating years.

        2. “She has networked and worked for years to cultivate advantageous relationships and I don’t think it’s coincidence she has ended up with a guy who can place her at the pinnacle of power, money and fame.”

          So, you’re basically calling her a golddigger?

          There is nothing wrong with networking. It is a skill to be admired.

          You really don’t think too highly of the girl, do you?

          1. The jury is still out for me… I’m a middle of the roader. I see some things that are pluses, and some things that are negatives. I don’t feel the need to berate her or defend her.
            I actually think Meghan and Carole are rather similar in the social aspiration/networking department. I’m not meanin to stir the pot by that, just a thought I’ve had for awhile now.

        3. But nowadays the mix of high and low is actually a thing, a distinct trend for even the very wealthy to show that they are not out of touch. So i am pretty certain the mass-market brands will still appear regularly.

        4. I don’t agree, if you have a stylist in HW and are sample size you have access to luxury brands. Anyone who is on the red carpet has access.

          1. Sure, to wear and borrow for an event. Meghan is in the leagues to own now.
            Also, Leah is the one who read my observation/opinion and minimized what I said into she thinks I believe Meghan is a gold digger. I’m not sure that is the case and isn’t a word I used to describe her. Both her and Carole had money at their disposal, so I don’t think it was flat out riches they were after. But seeking status and position? I believe so. Is that the same as a gold digger? I don’t know.

  30. Curious to see if Meghan will have a lady in waiting or if she will eschew one as Kate did. I remember that Anne Beckwith-Smith was Diana’s shadow back in the day.

    I also wonder who Meghan’s private secretary will be.

    1. I believe (and hope) she’ll continue to wear more accessible brands. To me, the engagement dress was the result of wanting to look good for a once-in-a-lifetime shoot (understandably).

  31. Why do the Daily Mail commentators dislike her so much? Do their comments represent what the U.K thinks of Meghan as a whole?

    1. I think their commenters are just people who are so unhappy with themselves that they feel the need to take everyone else down with them. I read the DM only because I’m in the US and don’t have access to other UK publications without paying. I try to not read the comments section.

    2. I think it’s best to stay away from tabloids like the DM. If you want to stay sane, stay here. Otherwise, you are choosing to be enmeshed in the drama so don’t come complaining here.

  32. The Daily Fail is a racist, nationalistic paper with readers who share the same views. I don’t think Meghan is as disliked as she is made out to be. However, the Daily Beast ran an article that said that the editor of a major UK tabloid was tickled pink over Meghan’s scandalous family as he plans to work that angle for some time.

    1. Actually Leah I have to stop you there. I read the DM daily as it’s Royal coverage especially photographs is second to none but I frequently find it’s rhetoric and viewers comments abhorrent and I’m not alone. I am fully aware of it’s shortcomings as a publication but you can’t tar all DM readers with the same brush. We are intelligent enough to separate the bullshit for ourselves.

      1. I don’t check out the comment section of the DM very much, but whenever I read comments from “Harriet from Toronto” I often wonder if she also posts here because some of her comments seem awfully familiar. I do chuckle at how she pierces through the Royal PR with accuracy.

          1. Maven that’s s compliment……’Harriet from Toronto’ is hysterical and as sharp as a tack. I’ve enjoyed some first rate shredding of RF PR with her. She’s no Kate fan either.

          2. I’d love to get in on the Harriet from a Toronto action – it sounds delightful. But when I Google “Harriet from Toronto,” my results are not successful. Is there a special trick that I’m missing?

          3. Lizzie said on KMR that ‘Harriet from Toronto’ has been AWOL since last November. Sadly we don’t know why but it could mean anything……she might even have been banned as she takes no prisoners. But she’s definitely worth a read if we can find her. Acerbic is the word for her posts but she has a lovely, soft underbelly.

            I saw Wild Rose holding court on there some of last year too, still flailing around the high seas. 🤐

        1. Ellie: Print DM, the Mail on Sunday and DMonline have completely different and separate editorial teams and journalists. They operate independently though some columns from one edition might appear in another. Different goals and different audience though under the umbrella of one company.

          Print DM and Mail on Sunday are more serious and newsy and investigative. DMonline is pure tabloid and employs many, many tabloid journalists, and has tabloid editors like Piers Morgan. They also took on many of the team made redundant by the closure of Murdoch’s news of the world. It’s all salacious sensationalism and click bait headlines in the manner of our tabloids.

          The ticker tape of naked celeb women down the side is typical of our more salacious tabloids. Ditto the showbiz section.

          The news and right minds sections are more typical of the print and mail on sunday editions.

          1. I’ll also add that i don’t understand why people rail against the tabloidy showbiz sections when they could simply go with other sections of the paper that aren’t salacious sensationalism. By all means if you want Piers Morgan to make your blood boil, go right ahead, but he is a tabloid editor and he is doing his job for the showbiz tabloid sections of the paper.

            Failing that, go read the telegraph. It’s pro-royal and no tabloid sections.

      2. True. Sorry MrsBBV. I look at it solely for the pics. I def don’t read the comments section.

      3. @MRSBBV, I completely agree 1000%. One needs to be careful not to paint an entire population of people with a broad brush based on online vitriol spewed out there by some posters. The nastiness in not only on the DM, its here too and else where e.g. twitter etc, but you can’t generalize feelings and emotions of a few people to a whole population just like that. Also, when one says “British people hate Meghan” just based on these posts on the DM, one is forgetting that not all online posters are from Britain. I have seen lots of Americans posting on DM too, and Canadians and Australians, and a whole lot of other people from other parts of the world. But even if all posters were British, counting the about 3,500 posts (on a given day) is a tinny tiny fraction of about 60 million British population so……..

        1. And just to add, not all British posters on DM post negative comments about Meghan. Just like not all American posters here, on DM or elsewhere post positive comments about Meghan either.

          1. Thank you darling.

            I’ve certainly posted lovely things about Meghan and, broadly speaking, I get about 1/3 of posters agreeeing with me. 2/3 disagreeing and a few nutters wishing all kinds of horrible things to happen to me.

            The slings and arrows of social media but it’s water off a ducks back to me.

  33. Anyone want to take bets on how far along Meghan is re her wedding dress? Do you think she has already chosen the designer, accessories and the dress? There was a rumor she was in LA last week, spotted at a Vera Wang boutique, but I don’t think she would choose an American designer, as she has not worn any American clothing yet for appearances.

      1. I’m guessing Vera Wang is for her mother. That would make sense as Doria is based in LA. Easier for fittings, etc.

  34. Meghan’s hair looked like she just got out of bed. Very messy and unpolished. I like that she had an updo but it could have been better executed.

  35. Given the string of bad press I love that Harry and Meghan did not let it effect them. In the past I have seen Harry glare at the press and be uncooperative. Sometimes royals don’t face the press so they can get good photos. Harry and Meghan seem unaffected and able to roll with the punches and hit the reset button. Meghan seems genuinely happy and surprised. The fact that both Harry and Meghan seem to feed off human interaction will help them overcome the pitfalls of their new royal life together. Meghan seems to be a fast learner, although I do hope she does not change her messy bun into the intricate designs Kate prefers.

  36. I’m not sure if this has been in any other comments but any crowns or tiaras that you’d love to see Meghan in?

    1. There was intense tiara debate on Celebitchy today. I don’t know enough about them to know which ones are which but maybe KMR/ MMR can do a blog post on the potential ones when she has recovered.

  37. I would like for either her to wear a tiara that Harry purchased for her or a tiara that is hidden deep in the vaults that no one knows about.

    1. I like the idea of a forgotten tiara! I wish they had a catalog of HM’s jewels we could drool over

    2. I think you might find that PoW or HMTQ will gift her one on marriage as they did with Diana and Fergie. Although Diana borrowed the Spencer Tiara, on her Engagement / Wedding / 21st Birthday (which all fell within the first two years of her joining the RF) she was gifted pieces from QM, HMTQ and PoW. Plus what she received as wedding gifts from the Saudi’s. ‘I’ve got Brenda’s Rocks’ Diana was reported to squeal on opening one jewellery case from HMTQ.

      Paul Burrell’s second book shows her gifted jewellery from the BRF being packed back up and sent back to them after her death but the original cards stating when and why she received them were still in the cases.

      But actually it’s Camilla who probably has the most stunning jewellery as the PoW has impeccable taste in women’s jewellery. I have my suspicions as to which pieces he has privately gifted Kate as they are very much in his style.

      As I don’t think Meghan is going to come into the family with much ‘occasion’ jewellery I think her future and very indulgent FIL will step in there. Somehow I think him and Meghan are going to be as thick as thieves.

      1. Oh yea Charles has amazing taste in jewelry. That one pink choker Camilla has is oh my gosh gorgeous. It’s a shame that Kate didn’t invest in some nice Van Cleef and Arpels pieces instead of the countless identical Kikis she has.

        1. If the £650K estimate of jewels purchased by Kate in this marriage is true, I weep to think it’s mostly worthless kikis.

          Just like her clothing, I wish she had a jewellery stylist to help her purchase decent jewellery that can be passed onto her kids instead of worthless kikis.

          The interesting thing about Kate is that except for a minute as a new bride, she’s worn real jewels for most of her events. So she clearly likes real jewels, but buys understated kikis to fit in with her events, except it’s wasted money *because* they are worthless and idiotic.

          1. Crazy isn’t it? With the kind of access she has to the industry’s finest curators and stylists, plus her funds KiKi McDonnagh is the last place in London I would be shopping for jewellery and building a collection from. You would have to prise me out of Bond Street’s finest and I would have them visiting me or at the very least have private viewings instore.

          2. MrsBBV: i’d never stop shopping in the jewellery section of 1stdibs.com

            Failing that, i’d be permanently parked in Bentley and Skinner or SJ Philips.

            And at every jewellery auction at Christie’s or Sotheby’s!!!

          3. Herazeus, 1stdibs to me is better than chocolate cake, lamb chops and buttery mashed potatoes. I am an addict to the site. The only thing better is the jewelry section at Bergdorf Goodman’s in NYC. The store, not the internet. And of course, every year when I am in London, I pay homage to the V & A museum, and stare at their collection of jewelry for hours.

          4. I could spend hours (and have) in the V&A jewelry display. The Hall-Grundy collection at the Bristish Museum is worth a gander too.

      2. @MRSBBV, on your last couple sentences of your post, I’m curious, is prince Harry and his father close? I’m asking because judging from their engagement interview and from the father/son latest podcast interview, they seem to be pretty close. I don’t know anything about the dynamics in this family but I’m hoping against all hope, for their sakes and for the sake of their wives and children, that Diana’s sons have forgiven their father for whatever went down,(just as I’m hoping-and it seems- they forgave their mother for her own contribution in the mess), they have forgiven their step-mother Camila and that they all have moved on and past that mess and forward to loving, productive and close relationships with their dad and their step-mother. I feel that its been 20 long years since their mother passed and its time move on, MO of course.

        1. I believe Harry is closest to his father than William is. Charles’ camp leaked info saying William barely let’s Charles see George and Charlotte. Hopefully Harry will be different with his kids.

          1. Oh thanks so much Cookie. As I mentioned before, Meghan would be wise to not get caught up or in the middle of any family issues, these aren’t her battles to fight. I’m hoping that Meghan (and Kate) have a healthy relationship not only with their FIL but also with Camilla. After all, they (Meg and Kate) weren’t in the BRF when whatever happened happened. I know that often times wives might take their husbands’ side if there are any family issues even if these are old issues that might have happened many years before the wives came on the scene, but my hope and prayer is Meghan and Kate have an independent take and/or stand (or stance) on these issues and choose to not take any sides.

        2. It’s been a while but Yaaaaaaaaaaassssssssss to all the jewelry on 1st dibs. That’s all.

  38. I would like to see her in a very streamlined, elegant dress. That modern style would suit her.
    The Greek Key tiara is beautiful and simple. Does it “belong ” to Princess Anne?

  39. Thanks. 😊. I thought as much. I don’t know what tiara then. I can’t wait to see it though. 😁

  40. I was just looking at pictures of tiaras belonging to the Queen Mother, and I saw a picture of an occasion with her and Diana. The QM was wearing a tiara, Diana wasn’t. If it was a “tiara” occasion, shouldn’t Diana have been wearing one as well? I also saw pictures of Princess Margaret with the QM and she wasn’t wearing one, while the QM was. But I assume that was before she was married.
    Btw-there is a beautiful picture of the Queen when she was younger wearing the Girls of Great Britain and Ireland tiara. She looks stunning.

    1. In modern day, tiaras are worn for white tie events or specific super formal events that are tiara events eg State opening of parliament, a daytime event, or state dinners or diplomatic receptions. Or white tie private party.

      Tiaras can only be worn by the daughters and DIL of a family in the male line . When the daughter marries, she can borrow her family tiara for the occassion, but hopefully her new husband has his own family tiara that she can wear going forward. Usually they gift the new DIL with a tiara to use / borrow if she has none.

      Technically the tiaras are inherited by the male heir as part of the entailed estate which keeps them in the family. They continue to be used by male heir’s female descendants along the line of succession, but only the immediate daughters and DIL. Once the daughters marry out of the family, their children are considered part of their new family rather than the old one and thus can’t use the family tiaras because they aren’t part of the family.

      A clear example, Zara and Autumn can use Anne’s tiaras because they are both Philips by birth and marriage. Isla and Savannah can go one using the Philips tiaras, but Mia cannot bacause she’s a Tindall. . If Zara inherits any tiaras from Anne, those will be the tiaras that Mia can use.

      Likewise, Diana could borrow the Spencer tiaras, but Kate and Charlotte cannot because they are not Spencers.

      The royal family complicates the tiara rules because they have access to the royal collection tiaras which aren’t family tiaras, but belong to the crown and held in trust by the monarch. In theory the monarch can lend those tiaras to various family members as they see fit as often as they like. This tends to confuse people when a tiara thought to be a personal one suddenly turns up on someone random which reveals it to be a royal collection one eg the Papyrus which was thought to be Margaret’s personal tiara which ended up on Kate. Ditto the Cartier Halo which was a personal present to the QM who lent it variously to Margaret and Anne, but then it turned up on Kate.

      This is also because the royals bequeath personal tiaras to the Crown and that causes more confusion eg the Cartier Halo.

      Regarding your earlier question about QM wearing a tiara when Diana was not. Without seeing the picture and occasion, I speculate that this is a generational thing. By the 80s, the wearing of tiaras had loosened up such that only strictly white tie formal occasions required tiaras, but the QM remained old school eg in the 50s and the 60s, the QM, Margaret and the Queen wore tiaras to the theatre!!!

      1. Thank you!! That helped a lot 😊 I’ve also seen people say that once someone wears one (i.e. Kate in the Payrus one) then no one else can borrow it until I guess that person passes? I’m not sure if that makes any sense but not exactly sure how to word it. Any insight on that protocol?

        1. Stacy: HM seems to prefer giving life loaners to the ladies such that they only wear those tiaras for the rest of their royal life. That means that Kate has the Cartier Halo, the Papyrus and the CLK as her life loaners.

          Previous monarchs weren’t so strict with the loans and would lend them out to several generations within memory eg the QM is the original owner of the Cartier Halo which was a gift from her hubby. Soon enough it was seen on Margaret as her starter tiara and shortly after that on Anne as her starter tiara. It then disappeared for decades before suddenly popping up on Kate.

          it’s currently in the touring Cartier exhibition so we won’t know for some time if Kate keeps it or it goes back into the vault for another member of the family.

          I wager that once Kate got her hands on the CLK, she has no desire to wear any other tiara, *headaches be damned. It’s part of her Diana cosplay.

          *all previous wearers of the CLK have hated it and Diana memorably said it gave her headaches which is why she borrowed her own Spencer family tiara so frequently.

          1. Awesome!! Thank you for the info and that makes a lot of sense. I’d love it if she let the ladies mix it up. And I’d love to see Kate in her wedding tiara again.

            The CLK has always been a favorite of mine!! I think it suits Kate. I had heard about Diana saying that. I wish they had more tiara events so we could see more. Or I guess more public photos of the ones they do. Though I can’t stand wearing a headband so I would probably hate to wear one

  41. The daily fail just published an entirely useless article about Meghan’s ring placements.
    Interesting find – Meghan seems to have Simian lines on her palm (just indulging in a bit of palmistry). Makes her all the more interesting if true!

      1. They asked Will the wrong question.
        They should have asked if he was going to be Harry’s supporter.
        ‘Semantically speaking’ Will won’t be Harry’s best man.
        Down the track, if Will is Harry’s supporter we will know he has been able to side step the question without fibbing or giving anything away about wedding plans.
        In my opinion, if Will is going to be Harry’s supporter he would have been asked by now.

    1. I imagine they have only earnestly began planning the wedding after Christmas. I’m also sure William would not divulge if he was actually asked or not. They don’t just spill private details about a wedding. I think both boys need media training on how to give a short affirmative/ negative answer that reveals nothing yet is cute and not wordy.

  42. I thought both Meghan and Harry were great yesterday. Lovely comments from those they were visiting. One of the DJs mentioned how clear it was that both did their research and that Meghan knew all about everyone there and was asking them very specific questions unique to them. THAT is how you do it!

    Fashion wise: Meghan looked chic. I love the slacks! What a great, but simple professional outfit. The burberry coat was all that was lovely and was well fitted for Meghan. I wasn’t a fan of the scarf placement though.

    Her hair was a little too “thrown together” for me, but it framed her face soooo well. She is a truly beautiful woman. She just glows and her make up is well done and natural.

    Harry has been looking great dress wise lately. Thanks Meghan!!!!

    Certain posters on RD are beside themselves to try and find fault with Meghan, but given the crowd reaction to her and my own anecdotal experience talking about it with folks in London, I say Meghan is going to be ok as along as she keeps doing what she is doing and doesn’t make another 56k dress move. I think she is savvy though and won’t make such a mistake twice.

    The royal reporters were shocked by how big the crowds were. There wasn’t suppose to be a walkabout, security was extremely tight (they cordoned off the whole area and people had to be searched), and KP didn’t release a time either for their arrival. But people still came!

    I do wonder if the MPD has receive more threats in regards to Meghan…at one point Harry had the most security of any BRF member because of the amount of threats he receive post serving overseas. Given Meghan’s background and the general anger in the air, I wonder if we will see tighter security around her initially.

    1. Thanks for bringing up the intense security, not only the regular RPO but also London police was present. The reaction of the crowd was rather intense but friendly. I do wonder about unseen threats.

    2. Wisdom Heaven: I agree with everything you stated above! In particular, this –

      “Harry has been looking great dress wise lately. Thanks Meghan!!!!”

      I’ve been impressed with his wardrobe and overall turnout lately. I am holding out hope that Meghan steers him away from those horrid blue baggy trousers for good. I think I also notice more hair on Prince Harry’s head? Perhaps that’s only a trick of the light or angle?

      And when it came to Meghan’s outfit for the day – I thought it was perfection. Her hair was business casual to pull the ensemble theme together. Somehow, the wide, chic cut of the trouser leg reminded me strongly of Spain’s Queen Letizia. If ever there is a style icon to emulate!!

      1. I do like that Meghan has updated Harry’s wardrobe. Also his hair and beard look like he is going to a barber who knows how to shape and groom hair. I think William is still attractive but I wish he would make more of an effort like Harry seems to be doing. William’s hair could be groomed better, also his clothing choices can be updated. Men need to at lease CARE also. Good to see Harry stepping up his game.

        1. William’s trousers, generally, could do with upping a size or two. Either he finds his revealingly tight… accommodations… to be stylish, or else his lifestyle isn’t as fit as it used to be and he has failed to update his wardrobe.

          In any case, I have seen more of William this year than I ever cared to see in my life.

  43. Meghan’s look yesterday was perfection. I loved the messy bun, she is incredibly beautiful and those stating they wished she were more “polished” are boring! Meghan will have endless formal affairs to attend and I know for those events she will dress impeccably for the formal occasions. The only misstep she has made in my mind was the engagement dress and I don’t think she’ll make that mistake again. Harry looked so handsome, I love their interactions, dear lord, those calling for the “loved up” behavior to stop, RE-LAX they have a short engagement as it is, I’m sure in the years to come their passionate love will fall into more of a slow burn.

    1. Iris – great minds must think alike, because I wrote the same thing above only to notice your post moments later!

      1. Hi! Aw yes we are definitely on the same page! Looking forward to chatting with you here as we see more of Prince Harry and Meghan!

    2. Totally agree, I love her look, I love that she bothers to prepare, I love that she loves our Harry – he deserves a woman who truly loves him. Does she love his money? She probably does, but that does not mean she does not also genuinely love him as a person. She will have done her research and she will know that this job is not all fun. Anyway it is not as if she had no money or career of her own.

      1. There is a *fabulous* line from an equally *fabulous* film:

        “Don’t you know that a man being rich is like a girl being pretty? You wouldn’t marry a girl just because she’s pretty, but my goodness, doesn’t it help?”

        -Lorelei Lee, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes

        1. My granny long dead but a canny Scot, used to tell me ‘never marry for money but always marry where money is’.

  44. The question remains…Can William handle the popularity of Harry and Meghan? Of the four, he maybe the least popular.

    1. *shrugs*

      Why should he care about their popularity? He’s the one who is going to be king. Full stop. I think any talk of him getting passed over for Harry is the fairiest of fairy tales. Never going to happen.

      1. I think C-Middy is the one who is terrified.

        William should care, because an unpopular King is not a good thing. Charles is very aware of this.

      2. I agree he is going to be king. That doesn’t mean I like him, or that I think he will be a good king. *shrugs* I think a king and/or queen should care about the publics opinion on them, especially in today’s world were if the people don’t support him and think he doesn’t represent them well there could be a movement to abolish the monarchy.

      3. Oh, oh! Oh, oh! Oh,oh, LIZB, William and his fans should be very, very careful not to get too cocky “because he’s gonna be king”. If he gets careless and doesn’t care, there might be no kingdom for him nor his son to reign over. POW is very well aware of this. That’s why he’s rallying all his troops at this point, don’t even be fooled for a second that this Harry/Meghan couple is a mere coincidence. POW knows very well that if they cease caring about their subjects, there won’t be no one to reign over, so William needs to be very very very careful and START caring right now, if he isn’t already. And dutchess Kate needs to start pulling those sock up right now. There’s a large percentage of people that are wanting the monarchy to be abolished once HMTQ passes. POW might be the last king to reign over the UK if William isn’t careful.

        1. I think one of the smartest things Harry and Meghan can do is stay on the right side of Charles and the rest of the BRF. William and Kate have no support in the BRF and it does not bode well.

        2. As Charles has said – the monarchy exists because people want it. If they have no connection, don’t care, don’t want it, they are out on their butts.

        3. Of course William should care – but my point is, unless he feels differently from his words and actions up until now, I don’t think he does. In his mind, he is entitled and thats that. He’s benefiting from “Diana’s son syndrome” (as is Harry) and unfortunately, I think he’ll get by on that.

  45. New engagements!!! From Kensington Palace:” Prince Harry and Ms. Markle will visit Cardiff on 18th January, for a day showcasing some of the rich culture and heritage of Wales at @cardiff_castle and to see an example of how organisations are working in communities across the country with @StreetGames.”

    I am so excited. When they talked about boots on the ground and seeing the UK, they meant it. Meghan has done more in her engagement period than Kate has. I wonder why. Also, William has an engagement that day.

    1. I love that they are actually working! And that they are visiting different communities across the U.K. I hope the keep it up.

    2. The culture festival seems made up completely for this visit, which sounds a bit odd. Cardiff Castle is a really cool place.

      1. I think the Reprezent thing was more made up, to tell you the truth.
        I also remember thinking the Irish engagement William and Kate did was more made up.

  46. I think it’s great that Meghan is doing engagements. This way the public can get to know her, she can see and learn about her new home and hopefully the papers will give her positive press.
    Meghan definitely has star quality.

  47. It will be a cold day in hell before the press is nice to Meghan. Many of the royal reporters are dead set against her. Meghan’s best defense is to keep going out, meeting people, working. She shines and I agree she has star quality and it seems she is willing to do the work.

    It seems the BRF really like her and with that and the public on her side, she should be ok.

    1. The press will come round when they see the crowds cheering. They said she wouldn’ t be welcome in Brixton… she was. She’ll win them over especially if they keep working..together is absolutely fine til post wedding.

    2. It appears she has the US media behind her, so that should help IF she does continue doing engagements like yesterday. Plus from what I’ve read of yesterday’s engagements the press seemed to think she did a good job, even though they hated to admit it. So she just needs to keep it up, and work hard.

      1. Oh the press hates to praise Meghan and give her credit for anything. It’s sickening. They really are shocked at the size of crowds and how they seem to really be supporting Harry and Meghan.

        And yes, the American media has Meghan’s back all the way. It was only after they expressed outrage over Princess Michael’s racist brooch that they UK media reported on it.

        That, to me, says it all. The UK media didn’t seem to care about the racist gesture, till the American press defended Meghan.

    1. Leah, I think Birdy means post wedding, split up and do individual engagements, right Birdy?

      1. Yes I don’t expect her doing any solo engagements until she is an HRH. After that I would still expect most engagements to be joint for a while, but that she start doing a few things solo with her own chosen charities.

  48. So with the news of the engagement in Wales next week, it got me wondering how often do you want to see Meghan doing engagements prior to the wedding? I think one a weekish is a good amount for now, but once they get married I’d want the amount to increase. But I’m spectacle of the amount of work she’ll do after all of Kate’s keeness to work.

  49. Julia, do you mean “skeptical” instead of spectacle?

    I want to see Meghan and Harry as often as possible. To be honest, I am shocked we have seen this much of Meghan. I mean, it took THREE Months for Kate to get off her duff and do an engagement after she got engaged. And there was never any reason given for that.

    You start out as you mean to go in and Kate’s lack of work during the engagement period set the tone.

    Like I said, I am shocked Meghan is being seen and is doing engagements like this. I wonder if it is because the Palace realized that in Harry and Meghan they have the real deal, that they are a team and something special. I also think it can’t escape their notice that Harry and Meghan are drawing big crowds and that there is a huge interest in them.

    I was listening to a podcast on the BRF and they had Simon Perry on, who reports on the BRF for People magazine here in the US. People basically helped Diana become a superstar stateside. Simon said that Meghan has had 3 covers from People in a month, which is not typical for them. He said the engagement cover sold well and Meghan’s solo cover the week after that sold even better and that is a shock. He said there is huge interest from their readers in Harry and Meghan.

    And in Brixton, many black women felt that because of Meghan, they finally can relate to the BRF. This is something not to be underestimated and I think the Palace gets Meghan’s appeal to minorities.

    I think there may be some very serious plotting going on at the Palace to plot Harry and Meghan’s future and to deal with their unexpected popularity.

    And in the podcast, a reporter who was at Brixton, said it was apparent Meghan read her briefings. She was prepared and the reporter impressed. Take that, William!

    1. Lol yes. 😂😂 This is what happens when I am trying to do multiple things at once. And for Kate, it’s her lack of work in the engagement period and the constant PR push that she is keen to work, but than never actually works. And when she shows up it’s tends to be like it’s a chore for her, she often isn’t prepared, ext. So for me it is so nice to see Meghan showing up all ready and really being engaged, prepared, and working. I’ve said it before I think Meghan having worked her whole life, will hopefully translate in her really working for the brf. But after the huge letdown I had after Kate, I just can’t trust that it’s going to happen until I see it.

    2. Leah, could it be that it took Kate this long because no engagements were scheduled? I mean, we are talking 2010/2011 vs 2017/2018! I wanna give Kate the benefit TBH.

      1. I don’t wanna give Kate the benefit and I won’t. Someone else said and I remember it like yesterday that after the engagement was announced, the Palace put a statement that said not to expect to see a lot of Kate before the wedding.

        At the time, I thought it odd and the wrong tack to take. I am just wondering why Meghan has been so quickly assimilated while it took months for Kate to do an engagement. Seeing how quick Meghan has been to do engagements and how good at them she is and genuinely interested does not make Kate look good at all.

        There was no reason why Kate should have waited 3 months to get off her duff and do work when she was engaged. And to be honest, at the time Kate was engaged to the heir. There should have been engagments scheduled and it was even more imperative for her, instead of Meghan to get out there and meet people.

        Instead, Feb-April, she did almost an engagement a month. Contrast that to how Meghan is getting out there.

        See my point?

        1. It could be partly William’s fault. One point Herazeus made recently was that because William kept his engagement to Kate so very secret from virtually everyone, his staff had no opportunity to plan for events to include her until a few months after the public announcement. Harry, however, seems to have had the exact opposite approach, and he, Meghan and the KP staff have had plenty of time to plan events.

          1. Thats what I think too Lizzie. In Kate’s defence, Harry has had the greatest opportunity handed to him (from the man up above) to learn from his brother’s mistakes. That’s why it seems Harry is working together with not only KP but also with his father to get business done, and so far he is impressing a lot of people. It seems William did a lot of things on his own in the beginning and that came back to bite him in the you know what. I’m sure if he could turn back the clock he would do things very differently. Now that the Cambs messed a lot of things up from the beginning, its super hard to clean up their mess. They should have started working hard right after the engagement. If not, it took them 2 years to get pregnant, those 2 years were really wasted and its very unfortunate that the time they wasted earned then the names lazy Kate and work shy Wills. But its never too late, they need to start now and pick up the pace. If they do so, I’m sure all the 7 wasted years will be truly forgiven and forgotten.

          2. +1 Masamf

            I feel like Kate is forever damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t. I’m not saying she is innocent in all of this but I think there are a lot of factors that have played into this. And unfortunately they have a long uphill battle to fight. I can’t say I’m super impressed with their last year but I’m definitely willing to give them a chance. I like both Kate and Meghan and look forward to their year.

          3. Masamf: You are being too kind about William and Kate and not giving Harry enough credit.

            Right from his younger years as a child, Harry was always interested and curious about people. He was always the helpful child.

            William had to be coaxed or bribed or threatened into doing anything and by the time he was a teen, he had stopped taking everyone’s advice, admonitions etc on board.

            Look at the outcome of their gap years after A levels. William treated it as your typical gap year, Harry started Sentebale. And actually, Charles was opposed to Harry starting it on the grounds that Harry was too young, and it should be an off shoot of The Prince’s Trust. Harry held his ground and Sentebale was created and remained an independent entity.

            Sandhurst showed Harry in his mettle. He graduated with flying colours. William merely graduated. He was a drunken, boorish mess in his time there. Your typical hoorah henry. Lots of calls to CH about his behaviour.

            During their military careers, William was passed around the services as quickly as possible because he was spoilt and didn’t stick to the routines even if they were made easier for him. He nearly sank a boat in the Navy, he took helicopters for joyrides in the RAF, and the army prevaricated about keeping him when he left SAR. A retired Naval officer actually gave a thinly veiled ‘we don’t want him’ interview about the trouble of hosting princes in the military services when William was making noises about navy or Army during this time.

            Meanwhile Harry was excelling in the army and loved by his colleagues to extent that when he had his Vegas mishap, many soldiers publicly supported him. Some 30, 000 in the end joined a public facebook page supporting him.

            And during these ten years, William was twice given a taster of running big estates(Chatsworth) as well as that Cambridge course that he never completed, he was given a taster of the city for a month. None of it went anywhere.

            Harry was always deputising for Charles in the running of the duchy and was sent to Romania on occasion to look at duchy developments there. He attended a few Prince’s Trust & Duchy meetings.

            The 2007 Diana concert saw Harry behind the scenes for months and weeks working to make it a success whilst William as usual bunked off and only turned up at the end for interviews and the final presentation of the concert.

            His own wedding couldn’t rouse William to be more involved and had Kate, Harry and Charles organising everything.

            And in the meantime he gave numerous interviews boasting about how he went against any advice given to him AND doing his best to avoid royal duties.

            At every public moment over the past 7yrs, Harry has always been given more responsibility than William despite William collecting all the honours due to his position.

            During that same time Harry also did stella work with Help for Heroes and Walking with the Wounded not forgetting IG.

            Harry’s recent poor showing only started AFTER he left the army. The first year he remained disciplined and diligently showed up every week at the MoD’s rehabilitation unit for wounded soldiers.

            And most telling of all, when he is interviewed about his or Charles’s work, he has been able to talk at length about it. In depth and coherently. Not meaningless platitudes.

            William has said very plainly that he doesn’t know what royal work is AND he doesn’t know what Charles does beyond being deeply committed to it. The only thing he could say about The Prince’s trust was that it dem9nstrated Charles’s strong sense of duty. Before going on to co plain about how much Charles worked and didn’t pay enough attention to him.

            The change in Harry seems to have taken place over the past 18mths when he prioritised his love life over his work. That is not MM’s fault, but as he admitted in his engagement interview, he met up with MM every 2 weeks for 18months for 4days – week at a time. That chunk of time away contributed to his slacking work record because apparently he can’t walk and chew at the same time, but also saw him morph into an entitled magical prince.

            There are many, many interviews online, on youtube given over the past 15yrs in which he is so humble and engaging and aware of his privilege and the need to do better. It’s only in the past 18mths that this has morphed into magical prince-ing. One has to wonder the cause because that wasn’t a position he held before going by previous interviews.

            William has never, ever shown any curiosity about the outside world. The world serves him not the other way around. When he talks, even in public speeches, it’s always about his needs being met. How it affects him. How well other people are serving him or his family. You can count on one hand the number of times he has spoken public in a way that showed he empathized with his audience.

            I am disappointed in present day Harry, but i remain hopeful that the Harry of 2yrs ago will return. That Harry was a royal we could be proud of. This magical prince Harry is not one i thought i’d ever see.

          4. Oh my goodness Hera, I’m just humbled just reading your post. I have said before that I can’t claim to have any substantive knowledge about the BRF, you just confirmed what I’ve always thought. I’m still a believer, and by that I mean I still believe the Cambridges can turn their ship around, otherwise the United Kingdom is in jeopardy. My other hope and prayer is that now that Meghan is in the UK, Harry has no excuse, work and make his father, his grandma TQ, POE and everyone else involved) really proud. I’m hoping that since these 2 feed their souls off of hard work, I hope they show the Cambridges how things are and should be done. I’m also with a strong conviction that POW gave his blessing before Harry proposed. Maybe they had Meghan over a few times and after talking to her, POW got convinced that this was their gal. As I said above thread, this couple back to back engagements this early is no coincidence IMO. So I’m hoping that Meghan lives up to what she said that she has never wanted to be a lady that lunches but one that works, so please work. It seems like a decision was made that for the sake of the survival of the U.K., if William and Kate are not willing to work, PoW, DoC, Harry and Meghan will do the heavy lifting and hope for a better future of this kingdom.
            But as for me, I’m still holding out hope that Harry and Meghan set an example for the Cambridges to change for the better. Thanks for such a informative post.

          5. Harry focusing on building a strong relationship with Meghan in 2017 will IMO prove to have been a good long term strategy for his marriage being successful.

            I mean, EVEN with all of that going on, he still had over 200 engagements including an incredibly successful IG. He continued to build a fruitful relationship with world leaders and went on tours. He has worked pretty consistently this year minus August, which is when none of the royals work.

            I don’t see the magical prince stuff that Hera sees, but I do agree that he seemed less engaged and more distant in 2017. But he was still so instrumental to so many projects and did so much work behind the scenes. And since he has been engaged to Meghan, his old spark and joy is back.

            I am excited for what Harry does this year. I really hope it will be a banner year for him.

          6. The ‘magical prince’ thing Hera is talking about is from Harry’s Newsweek interview whining about how hard done he is being royal, how the world needs royal ‘magic’ to function, nobody wants to be monarch, his brother is the bestest ever and will drop a lot of royal engagements because it’s boring and irrelevant…

          7. @WISDOMHEAVEN, I agree with @ELLIE that Hera was referring to Harry’s attitude and approach to issues and situations rather than to his work contributions. I’m hoping that now with his wife by his side, with guidance from his father (from the last podcast, it seems like Harry seeks his father’s advice and guidance quite a bit; as he should if you ask me) those none productive interviews and off the cuff remarks are a thing of the past. Harry has the knack for learning from his past mistakes, so hopefully from here onwards we’ll all be like go go go.

        2. I like Kate, but I think Will and Kate took too much time off before becoming full time royals. I think that once Will left the air force he should of became a full time royal in earnest. Now it seems he and Kate have to do catch up with Meghan and Harry who aren’t even married.

          Kate once said she would rather be like the Queen Mum, her primary goal is to be a good mom and not a figurehead.

          In the future W&K will be more traditional while H&M more progressive. It could be the best of two worlds.

          1. That’s what I think too, MIMIBOBIMI, so much time they wasted before they got pregnant. But it’s not to late to change for the better, it’s doable.

          2. masamf – I agree it’s not to late and I think Kate is making strides to be more outgoing, however she is an introvert at heart. I hope she does not make any drastic changes to compete with Meghan other than being more visible. In a way having someone more extrovert could make it easier for Kate to just be Kate. Let Kate be Kate but more visible, and let Meghan be Meghan.
            I’m interested in seeing them without the men. I think they could empower each other.

          3. I agree that Kate is by nature an introvert while Meghan is an extrovert. Hopefully Meghan will provide the impetus that Kate needs to become a harder worker, more productive royal.

          4. Every time i see that quote about Kate wanting to be like the Queen mother, i laugh. Depending on how seriously it’s quoted, i laugh endlessly because it demonstrates how poorly Kate understands or has been informed about The Queen Mother.

            Sure, in her final 2 decades, this woman was indulged to the nth degree and aloowed to do whatever she wanted. Uncensured, adored and beloved and not a public word.

            Yet the Queen mother was a hardworking member of the family. She knew how to steer the family. The steel in a velvet glove. Her husband and daughter’s reigns would be nothing without her.

            A woman so attuned to public life and the right message to convey to hold the British public together in war and in peace.

            The right words to convey that she was one with the people despite the reality of her life vs theirs.

            A woman so good at her role that Hitler once called her the most dangerous woman in Europe for her effectiveness.

            A woman so strong minded that our current Queen didn’t relax or change palace rules until after her death and always made sure that whatever she did, it would pass the Queen Mother’s smell test.

            And finally that Quote from the Queen Mother, ‘ Work is the rent we pay for our privileged life’

            And managed 100 engagements per year in the last 5yrs of her life despite being 96-101yrs old with dodgy hips.

            Kate be like The Queen Mother? Someone is seriously trolling Kate. The only thing she’s managed to equal the Queen Mother is the birthing of heirs.

            The Queen Mother, an uneducated woman brought up as an Edwardian lady is more modern, more accomplished, more hardworking, more savvy, a very good politician, a master publicist, a master manouvre etc than the very educated, modern Kate who does every impression of being an Anglo-Saxon throwback ie woman without agency, not even when she bears children and will be swiftly forgotten, and at best is purely ornamental and not in a good way.

            The Queen Mother was the backbone of the family, from the minute she married her prince.

            Kate can’t even run her own household, nevermind anything else.

          5. Hera, what about during the Queen Mum’s duchessing years? I know Gerorge V was fond of her but I didn’t think she was all that impactful then. Could you share some of that history with us?
            And if the Queen Mum was such a strong character, how did she drop the ball in regards to Margaret?

          6. Kateincali: i think her eventual character and attitude to work was the result of her experiences growing up during WW1.

            WW1 broke out on her 14th birthday. 4 of her brothers signed up and one of them died almost immediately whilst another was a prisoner of war.

            Her family home, Glamis Castle, was turned into a convalescent home for wounded soldiers and she worked alongside nurses to nurse the soldiers and it’s claimed she was very involved in the running of the home during this time.

            It helps that when she married into the royal family, The King and Queen thought she was the best choice for their son. It seems to have been a mutual love affair between inlaws and new DIL.

            And no slacking on the work front even though at this point she was destined to remain a Duchess for rest of her life.

            As Duke and Duchess, they carried out royal duties as requested by the King and Queen. They also undertook tours to East Africa, Australia, Jamaica, Panama, Fiji, New Zealand, Mauritius, Gibralta, Malta. The tours were several months at a time because travel was by boat so they sailed to various countries on a route, but it meant leaving their babies behind with The King and Queen.

            And she helped her husband with his stammer long before he became King. The movie THE KINGS SPEECH fudged the timeline to claim that they looked for help after he became King, but actually it was much earlier when he was still a duke and had a terrible stammer. She was instrumental in finding the right people to help him including Lionel Logue who in the movie is played by Geoffrey Rush. He was engaged in the 20s and continued to work with the duke for next 20yrs including after he became King.

            In terms of her public duties, she seemed to have been popular with the public from the start. And she seemed to have a very clear sense of what was expected of her and no shirking. And reading into her history, most people seemed to differ to her because she was very pro-active in her approach to everything. Even as a child.

            With regards her children, it’s a case of nature AND nurture. Elizabeth is and was always a serious personality. Margaret was the opposite. At first they were raised as equals, but when the abdication happened, Elizabeth was raised as a future monarch whilst Margaret was spoilt and petted. I think they thought that apart from her royal duties, Margaret wasn’t expected to make more of her life than be a wife and mother because that was the expectation for women. I think if she had been male, much more would have been expected of her -see her cousin William of Gloucester.

            I think Elizabeth having monarch duties helped give her something to do whilst nothing was expected of Margaret and no effort or plans were made for her. I think the expectation was that she would marry and settle down as expected of women of that era. I think if she had been a male, she would have been given something to do with her life.

          7. The tragedy of Margaret was that she was much more intelligent and sociable than Elizabeth, but she was raised conditioned to do nothing and her wings clipped such that she couldn’t exercise any courage to forge her own path.

            And she was raised being petted and fawned over and isolated which warped her personality into ironclad expectation of being treated at all times as the ivory tower princess she was.

            I think her descent into cafe society was a form of rebellion, but we know what a disaster that turned out to be.

          8. @mimibobimi

            “Kate once said she would rather be like the Queen Mum, her primary goal is to be a good mom and not a figurehead.”

            This was never the one I heard going around at that time. It was that she wanted to be loved/adored/seen like the Queen Mum but never heard.

            There wasn’t anything about her wanting to be a mom and not a figurehead. It was the traditional Kate Middleton stance – 1) wanting people to take care of poor little Kate and 2) her mistaken impression that the Queen Mum never worked.

            @Herazeus – agreed. Margaret could have been so much more if the royal family understood what a force she could have been if pointed in the right direction.

      2. They could have scheduled engagements. If Will and Kate had said we want to get out across the country and travel one day every week, their team could have made it happen. Everyone wanted to see them just as H&M are the new golden couple just now.
        It looks to me as if Harry is in the driving seat choosing events where Meghan is comfortable while she gains confidence in her role. Brixton was ideal, her links to showbiz/entertainment would have made it easy for her to understand her briefing notes and to ask intelligent questions. As she gets more comfortable clearly some events will be more outside her comfort zone.
        Early signs are hugely encouraging.

        1. BIRDY, Personally I blame Wills for the most part even though I don’t completely absolve Kate. William should have made these engagements happen, I’m sure Harry is the one being the behind the scene mover and shaker in his case. I blame Kate only because I believe that had she pushed William to set them engagements up, he would have. The thing is of the two brothers, Harry seems to be the most proactive and when you couple an active guy with a hard working woman like Meghan, the Cambs are gonna pale in comparison. I was reading an article the other day about how much Meghan is worth etc and at some point the author mentioned how Meghan has nothing on Kate because Kate is more worth etc. I said to myself, you are comparing apples and oranges. Meghan worked for her money, she wasn’t born into it. Harry and Meghan are gonna be a real force to recon with and a huge challenge for the Cambs if they continue on like this and even better.

          1. I can’t see Kate pushing William to do anything. She seems to meek and completely under his thumb. And I certainly can’t see her pushing him to set up engagement so she actually has to, *gasp* work. No, no, no, no.

        2. I think Kate is just a lazy girl who doesn’t care to get to know or understand people outside the very sheltered, privileged world she was raised in. All C-Midd did was raise Kate to get the ring. She didn’t prepare her for life after the ring.

        3. Herazeus, you said Queen Mary and the King realized the Queen Mother was the right match for their son-but had he dated anyone apart from the Queen Mother?

          1. As far as we *know, the Queen mother was the second lady he dated.

            *As you know, official records sanitise biographies so we won’t be able to verify his history for at least 100yrs after his death when records are unsealed.

            The official record says he was infatuated with an Australian aristocrat, **Lady Loughborough, who surprise surprise was already married!!

            ** https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheila_Chisholm

            He was persuaded by the King to drop her and soon after that he ***re-met his future wife.

            *** they first met in childhood.

          2. Thank you, Herazeus, for the info on Sheila. OTher than Fergie, (ha, ha) is there another royal lady that Meghan reminds you of and why?

          3. I’m so loving these English monarchy history lessons, please keep’em coming. Thanks our British buddies, wherever you are, for your wonderful contributions.

          4. Meghan as a person doesn’t remind me of Fergie. It’s the PR mistakes she’s making. That is easily corrected, but something she needs to watch because it’s giving press easy ammunition like Fergie did.

            And btw, by the time Fergie’s real scandals came along, the media had already crucified her with similar innocent pictures such that the scandals became bigger than they needed to be AND the royal family couldn’t circle the wagons to save her without soiling their own reputation even with the damaging Charles vs Diana shenanigans going on.

            Compare and contrast with Sophie and her scandal. Right up to that moment, she was seen as someone who had never put a public foot wrong. Sure there were rumblings about her continuing to work for her company and carrying out royal duties at the same time.

            When her scandal erupted, the family circled wagons and Sophie was saved, no long term damage done.

            So for MM’s sake, i hope she understands the mis-steps and corrects. For now the public loves her, but that can’t be trusted until it’s been in action for a few years.

          5. Hera, re: Meghan, I think she’d be making a mistake continuing to use the Canadian/American PR team she was using in her job as an actress; this is a different role all together. I believe this role will require a team that is knowledgable of navigating the British monarchy “system” and the how tos of dutchessing successfully. Also, I don’t think Jason team is very impressive in my opinion. I’m thinking that once Meghan settles in, she’ll figure out who the right people to go to in terms of guidance and advice. From what she shared with us pre Harry, I see her as a very intelligent woman who has a good head on her shoulders. I’m also hearing, or should I say reading, that she and Camilla have taken to each other nicely, so hopefully Meghan forms those meaningful relationships that she needs to successfully navigate the waves and currents that come with this her role. Once she gets that, my hope is she will slowly start to let go of the Canadian PR and support team and lean more towards the British folks, you know, people that live in the UK and know the British system and are better equipped to be of better service to her role. And here’s to hoping that if Meg does this right, Kate will follow suit and ditch her PR because it doesn’t seem like it’s working for her either.

          6. Smartest thing Harry and Meghan could do is to drop Jason and move back under Charles’s PR control.

          7. @masamf,
            Kensington Palace PR looks after William, Kate, Harry and now Meghan. H&M would be better distancing themselves from them.

          8. @NOTASUGARHERE and @JEN, that’s what I think. It’s in Harry and Meghan best interests to sort of join forces with the PoW PR team. That doesn’t mean they can’t have smothering that is more suitable for them as HM but they need to not use Jason and his team as their PR as it seems disastrous from what I’ve read. PoW team might not be without blemish (I still remember what I read about one guy that decided to use the young princes to “whitewash” their father but nobody is perfect, we all are human) but but with their fathers guidance and all that, HM can really form a good PR that would do them a world of good service.

  50. Kate’s lack of work history while she was dating William should have been the warning sign that she was not going to be a hard worker once married.
    I think that she is introverted, so that doesn’t exactly push her either.
    Meghan has proven that she is a hard worker. Plus, she is outgoing, so I think she will seek things out.
    Maybe the “competition” will push Kate. Or maybe she’ll just appropriate having some of the focus taken off of her.

  51. Kate may appreciate the attention off of her (which I doubt), but C-Middy will not.
    I don’t think Kate is introverted. I think she is lazy and just doesn’t give a crap and doesn’t want to try.

  52. You’re right about Carole. She loves the spotlight!
    Kate probably does too, but in her terms.

  53. I think Kate is very, very aware of her status and will not look kindly on any attention that deflects from that.

  54. I like Meghan and am really impressed with how she handles herself. I think she’s going to be a real asset.
    I hope she continues in this vein.

    Maybe Carole will nudge Kate to step up her game.

    1. I think for security reasons but honestly they don’t seem to venture outside the Home Counties.

        1. The areas around London so Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent, Surrey, and Sussex… I’ve read Oxfordshire is sometimes included in this as well as Cambridgeshire, Hampshire, etc. Basically the areas around London are the ‘Home Counties’. 🙂

  55. I think the “explanation” for Kate doing so few engagements before the wedding (and indeed the first year of their marriage) was twofold. Firstly, that William was serving in the RAF and therefore was not a full-time working royal. Secondly, to allow Kate to have an easier time adjusting to royal life than Diana did. To my mind that’s taking Diana’s name in vain. Neither in her infamous Panorama interview (you can read the transcript here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/diana/panorama.html ) nor in the tape recordings that were the basis of Andrew Morton’s biography did she complain of having too heavy a workload. The difficulties she had stemmed from lack of constructive feedback from the royal household and the absence of a clearly-defined role. She also disliked the media’s focus on her appearance rather the causes she was supporting, which would only have been worse if she’d had a much lower workload.

    Let me put it this way. If you were responsible for “onboarding” a new member of staff in your firm, would you encourage her to turn up as and when she felt like it in order to get used to her new role? Of course not. You would expect her to work the same core hours as her colleagues, for how else can you learn to do a job except by doing it? You might give her some lower-profile projects to work on in order to settle in, or get her to shadow existing team members to get an idea of what areas of work she’d like to focus on. Following this analogy, it did (and still does) seem odd that Kate hardly performed any engagements within reach of Anglesey when she and William were living there. There must have been any number of county shows, eisteddfodau, chambers of commerce, you name it, where she could have made an appearance without the world’s media in tow and honed her public speaking skills in preparation for the higher-profile overseas tours to come. Such a wasted opportunity, given that the Royal Family have been criticised for being too London-centric. Wasn’t it during that time that the Queen had to pull out of a St David’s Day celebration at Swansea due to illness? I remember wondering why the Cambridges didn’t step in, given how they’d gushed about loving Wales so much.

    Which brings me back to the subject of this forum… Harry and Meghan are to visit Cardiff today. I’m really hoping that Meghan might say something in Welsh, as Diana did on her first visit to the city: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2sjrbK3J3k
    Granted, she may have been reading from a phonetic transcript but it’s still more than her daughter-in-law has ever done.
    Pob lwc Meghan!

    1. I know Meghan- Meghan is studying Welsh as we speak using Rosetta Stone, she is reading about the geography and history of Wales, she would have called up Pa Charles to ask him about his impressions Wales. And also coordinate her wardrobe to discretely pay tribute to the country . She is in her element.

      1. I agree-I bet Meghan did her homework and will make the visit another success.
        Her clothing will also be stylish and appropriate.
        Meghan is going to be a real asset to the royal family.
        I also think that she is smartening up Harry’s appearance.

      1. I tried to look it up. The only thing I could find was an article that she was studying the language while living there.
        I don’t know how true that is.

      2. Diana spoke in Welsh shortly after her wedding. Kate sang the Welsh anthem at her first engagement.

    2. Louisa

      You’ve missed the point. You’re applying a work ethic and care to a couple who have demonstrated none of it, except when forced.

      William, and by extension Kate, are not interested in the work aspect of their roles, just the privileges flowing from them. In the early days, any number of excuses were made for the couple not taking up full-time royal duties: his RAF job, her ‘easing in’ to her role etc etc. These were nothing but delaying tactics that continued for years, and still do. The Queen and Charles let William do what he wanted because they failed to discipline him (and Harry) out of incompetence and guilt over Diana. When William says he doesn’t want to be King – something he’s reiterated for over 20 years – he means that he doesn’t want to do what comprises royal work. He won’t walk away, though; he’s too much of a coward, a man with no conviction. She wants status, wealth and attention: to be ‘taken care of’. Actually, so does William, all on his terms.

      While ‘on paper’ they lived in Wales, William was almost kicked out of the RAF for not fulfilling work commitments, not earning enough flying hours. Given that everyone bends over backwards to accommodate royals, it must have been bad for the RAF to get to that point. Where was William if not working in this full-time job? Certainly not doing royal duties. Nor holed up with Kate who was rarely in Wales herself, bar a couple of pre-arranged pap photos with a shopping trolley. No, she was more often than not at home in Bucklebury, as well as being photographed in London, often. Probably shopping. He was most likely playing with friends elsewhere in England, but not working in Wales.

      1. I’m hoping that Meghan does really appreciate her new family and does right by them through hard work and fulfilling many and a lot of engagements and committments. Hopefully Meghan work ethic will rub off on Kate, I still have hope for the Cambridges.

      2. I forgot to add that Kate refused to join the RAF Wives Association when in Wales too; her disinterest in supporting others was palpable from the get-go. Why people expect Kate to change defeats all logic when she is rewarded for doing next to nothing. Making excuses for her and William (and Harry) simply infantilises middle-aged adults never having to be accountable for their choices.

        1. Jen: Right. It’s that age old question. What in Kate’s history makes people think she’s going to change?

          1. Herazeus, I think it’s just trying to have an optimistic view but as a Kate supporter I definitely see it fading with more and more Kate fans (myself included). I feel as though I have the opposite question, Why follow Kate so closely when people want her to fail so much? I apologize, I do not think I’m wording it the best way and it is no way meant to call you or anyone out. Like I said, I am a Kate supporter so I don’t understand the people who follow her while they are so against her. I understand the royal watching aspect but not the effort in the negativity. I hope that makes sense. Oddly enough I feel as though the people who are against Kate have helped me learn the most and help me see both sides.

          2. Well, nothing. Those hoping for change might as well take a lottery ticket; the odds are the same. In response to your wonderful reply earlier about William, I read that he had wanted to play polo with his mates for his gap year but this was vetoed by Charles who steered him in the direction of aid work in South America. So again, and like Kate, his self-absorbed spots were well-formed eons ago.

          3. STACY, no one wants Kate fo fail. If anyone wants Kate to fail it’s her mother and her husband who seemingly lack the ability to sit her down and have that discussion about her behaviour. Kate is called “lazy Kate” and William called “work shy Wills”for a reason. What is being written here are verifiable facts, and they all are of William and Kate doing. I’m not sure if you are implying that people should not make any critiquing of Kate because any criticism shows that we are against Kate? If that’s not yr implication, please forgive my assumption.

          4. Masamf, I apologize, my post was not meant to come off that no one should critique Kate. I’m sorry that was not clear. It is hard to say what I am thinking thru text. I’ve actually learned a lot through the criticism of Kate. I’m in the US so a lot of what I see is all pro-Kate. So I could be interpreting the intentions or tone of the posters are here because I do not know all of the information and history of Kate and William. I just don’t understand the people that take it past criticism and just hate her, yet follow her. I hope that helps clear up my post. I apologize it probably still isn’t clear, I think I’m trying not to offend anyone or point fingers because that is not my intention either. I’m still learning a lot about the royal family and enjoy both blogs and the information that I am learning through the comments. Already I’ve developing favorite commenters.

          5. Stacy: i’m not offended at all by your post nor do i think you are asking an impossible question.

            I can only answer for myself. I am fascinated by social history of royal women. How they affect society as a whole. How they are sold to the public. The difference between reality and the burnished image.

            It’s fascinating to me that so many things we take for granted can be traced back to actions or lives of royal women and or royals in general eg white wedding dresses only because Queen Victoria wore a white wedding dress.

            I tend to criticise Kate’s PR more than Kate as a person. What she represents is a step back for women and whether it is immediately obvious or not, society is affected by such high profile royal woman.

            I find myself criticising misconceptions people hold that are the result of PR and or misunderstanding of her role and life vs regular life and roles.

            Further, historically royal women have always had agency unlike regular women and have always exercised it, for good or bad. It’s astonishing to see a woman without agency by choice. A woman who only has to click her figures to get any and all help unlike regular women who lose their agency for a variety of reasons that aren’t easily remedied.

          6. Hera what do you mean by “royal women have had “agency” and have excel side it”? I’m very lost. I’m English as a second language person so some of these things are not easily understood. Thanks.

          7. Masamf: by ‘agency’ i mean their own rights, influence, opinions, money and power like modern women.

            They were expected to be ambassadors and diplomats and even to be regent for future royal husbands if required.

            To that end, they were educated like the men. They could get away with curiosity about the world and go as far as funding expeditions or studies without being called witches or heretics.

            They could defy a King and be protected by their status. They could even organise a rebellion and have public support because of their status.

            The only downside to their lives was being sent away to marry according to the King’ choosing, and birthing heirs. Usually for political and diplomatic reasons, but they were raised for this.

            It took centuries for regular women to get this and even so, we required a suffragette movement and *2 world wars to demonstrate that women were just as good as men and deserved equal rights without prevarication.

            *the world wars were awful for humanity, but they were great for female emancipation.

            ETA: there is a difference between royal women and aristocratic women because whilst aristocratic women had advantages better than their lower class gender, they still didn’t have the rights of royal women. It wasn’t necessary to educate them or provide for them or give them any rights at all. There are cases of aristocratic women enjoying such rights, but they are the exception to the rule.

          8. Thank you Herazeus for your response. I really enjoy your comments and have learned a lot from them. I agree, Kate has such an opportunity to do so much and is not. I’d love to see her be a voice for mothers. I had not thought of social history of royal women and their influence. It’s definitely something I plan to read more on. It will be interesting to see how Meghan influences the royal watchers. I think she will be a great influence and hope that William and Kate see that too. 🙂

        2. “When in Wales,” when we all know better – she was in London for most of it and rarely on Anglesey!!

          1. Masa, it means royal women have always had their own lives, always been given power other women haven’t.

          2. Oh okay, thanks a lot for explaining that Hera, very informative. And thanks a bunch to Leah for your input, much appreciated. I thought it meant some kind of an agency they would go to for advice etc, 😄😄silly me. Oh how I wish Kate would use all these resources available to her to make her role meaningful! And Hera, I hope both Kate and Meghan are reading these yr posts

        3. It always bothered me that Kate’s camp said she was signing up to the RAF wives club and then it never happened. I think comment at the time was that the people William worked with and their families never even saw her. Massively wasted opportunity, imo, and one of my first red flags. She(?) did write a foreword in their book “Living in the Slipstream” which they were very grateful to her for.

          Many mistakes were made with the Cambs in their beginning and like I said before, KP can learn from those mistakes. The public will be watching HM very closely due to the track record of the Cambridges. They simply have no excuse not to do better.

          1. A good friend of mine was pro-Kate until that RAF debacle. That one issue lost Kate a fan.

          2. I also thought that Kate didn’t really understand the symbolism of joining the RAF wives club, if only for a year or so. This was also the time when there were reports that she was in London when the PR was that she was living in Wales. So, where was she living?

            Moving ahead I also noticed that there have no reports that she joined The Women’s Institute as the other royal wives have. Why not? Once a year HM attends a meeting, the others attend functions sometime during the year.

            Which brings me to what social clubs MM will symbolically join once married? Will she be allowed some kind of participation in BAFTA? Will any of the fashion and garment societies extend an invitation to join their guild/society group? Will she become patron of theatre societies or any of the societies involved with professions in theatre recording arts. These are subjects she is familiar with and should start with when building a portfolio of interests. And she should begin to build this portfolio soon after marriage and taking the time, slowly but surely, to define her interests by engaging with the societies that align with her experience.

          3. GraceH: Now that you mentioned it, there was big fanfare that she would join the WI too. That’s how we found out that HM attends her local one even if just once a year. The WI was super excited that Kate was to join them, but like all things her PR claims she is keen to do, it came to nought.

            Regarding Kate’s whereabouts, RD used to ran a thread that posted every twitter sighting of Kate during this time, and she was either in Berkshire with her parents or in London.

            Anglesey sightings were very rare indeed, but the official line was that she was living in Anglesey with William, and from time to time, there were stint pap photos to prove it!!

    3. Diana’s problem was her marriage. Charles NEVER respected her. He may have behaved like a husband for a while, but he and Diana were a ridiculous match — no common interests, no desire to have common interests. And their unhappiness brought out the worst in both of them.

      Charles is infinitely more mellow now. When he was married to Diana, he was a stick. A dark, pouty, petulant stick who thought his mother might hand him the crown any minute and conducted himself with a comically exaggerated dignity.

      Diana got crazy. She was a kid in demanding circumstances with an ice cold husband. Charles had little sympathy. He wanted an all-accepting tough broad like. Camilla… not a hysterical 22 year old who wanted to be loved.

      In my mind, the point of giving Kate time to adjust was always about giving the marriage time to grow and get comfortabl without the stress of public life. Charles and Diana never had that time. Their marriage probably wouldn’t have worked even if they had, but maybe it would have. Maybe they’d have at least developed enough trust to divorce sanely.

      The work load wasn’t an issue. Diana was so lonely in the palace she loved getting out. Loved getting positive attention because she sure wasn’t getting it at home.

      IMO it was an excellent idea to let Will and Kate put marriage first for a few years. Will is uptight like his father. HE needed it. He and Kate have developed a working partnership now. We don’t know that they would have without adjustment time.

      Harry, different story. He has an easier disposition. He wasn’t burdened with the prospect of wearing the crown someday. He’s done sowing his wild oats, free from ambivalence about marriage, and has had the benefit of watching his brother grow into a true partnership. He and Meghan are ready to hit the ground running.

      If he we’re marrying a 19-year-old or if he were a difficult character, different story.

      1. Hera does it mean that British royal family members visiting this part of the UK is not advisable?

        1. It’s not that they aren’t welcome. It’s that their presence is always taken to be politically significant and Northern Island still has deep divisions. The good friday agreement is only coming upto 20yrs next year. It’s a fragile settlement and security is taken very seriously for all public figures.

          Any British political figures, be they politicians or the royals have to tread very carefully as a result.

          The royals have to be especially careful because many of the issues in Northern Island are direct result of their ancestors in a way unseen in the rest of the UK.

    1. Leah, without wanting to be political, Brexit is also a huge issue with N Ireland because it is the only part of GB that has a land border with an EU country. The issues being discussed are challenging a lot of the Good Friday agreements and everything is very tense. Royals cannot be seen to get involved in politics and the NI issue is always very sensitive.

      1. And didn’t the N Ireland Secretary retire due to this? They had two (?) elections last year right and nobody will work together? It sounds like such a mess… Northern Ireland can’t catch a break.

          1. The good friday agreement is a multi-lateral agreement that finally brought peace to Northern Ireland after nearly 70yrs of armed and violent agitation for a united Ireland which wasn’t exactly a universally accepted idea as many people in Northern Ireland were ok with remaining part of the UK.

            I’m simplifiying a very complex issue, but essentially the agreement acknowledges these two seemingly opposed ideas and allows for a change to a reunited Ireland should majority of the people wish it so.


  56. Let’s not forget that Harry has “it,” too. Long before Meghan came on the scene, he had his fans and always showed a warm and engaging side when he made appearances. He really is his Mum’s son! Now, he has found a woman who has “it,” too. I hope it will be a good balance and that their love will remain strong.
    I do wonder, though. Will Harry fall prey to any of the worries his father had with Diana? You know the people on PoW’s side of the street complained during appearances, They wished Diana was on their side of the street, not him. Awful!

    This is not a fairy tale, but real life and I do appreciate much about Meghan, but in my humble opinion the jury is still out as to whether she is as amazing as some people here seem to think she is. She’s human. So is Kate. They are different. There’s something a bit manipulative about Meghan, to me anyhoo. Unlike the manipulations of Carole Middleton, they are combined with amazing charisma, though. When she makes appearances, she seems to really care about the folks she is meeting. I hope that is true. Part of me longs for her to be as amazing as so many think she is. Part of me is skeptical, though. She is going to have to prove her genuine nature to me time and time again. If that is unfair, sorry. That is how I feel. I’m picking up something, that I worry about. But, maybe, it’s just the alarmist in me. At any rate, best wishes to Harry, whom I think is top notch, and Meghan, whom he appears to love very much. If they make people happy and can use their positions in life to help others, that is all one could ask!

    1. I don’t know why I find the term “manipulative” so …..repulsive if I can use that for lack of a better term….to me. I find it very unfair for people to coin a person they don’t know personally as “manipulative”. IMVHO, a person should be deemed manipulative or a gold digger dependent on known behaviours that person has exhibited, not by just looking at their pictures in magazines or whatever. I wonder what it is that Meghan has done that warrants her to be coined a “manipulative” person? Just wondering! I don’t know if Carole is “manipulative” but evidently, there a quite a few British people that know her personally that testified to her behaviour of manipulation; but Meghan? I’m still very curious to know why she is called “manipulative”.

      1. Here’s an example. Carole calling the parents of aristocratic girls at Kate’s school to try to guilt them into befriending Kate. She didn’t call the parents of other middle class girls at the school to ask the same thing, because she only wanted her daughter accepted and befriended by aristocrats. That is manipulating the situation and other people to get what she wanted.

        1. Oh thanks NOTASUGARHERE. It seems like, and reading from people that know her, Carole has exhibited some manipulative behaviours. Do you think this is how Kate befriended William? I’ve honestly got no clue how the Cambridges met. I’m still not sure about the proposal either because, they said it happened in Kenya while some people have said their engagement interview was riddled with inaccuracies. I have no idea what the truth is at this point. It’s also still a mystery , at least to me, how Meghan and Harry met, but that’s another argument, we may never really know the truths to both brothers’ stories though I don’t understand why the need for “top secrecy” surrounding these two princes, but that’s just me.

          1. William and Kate most likely met at a ‘Club H’ party at Highgrove in the basement, Emilia d’Erlanger probably introduced them. Kate had her eye on William for a long time. They certainly met before university; she changed universities to go after him after getting into Edinburgh and finding out William was going to St Andrews, and did the same thing as him for his gap year for Raleigh International but was a week after him. And working on a yacht in teeny tiny shorts.

            The Kenya story was from a friend of William’s who did that; they co-opted it. Kate talks about being engaged coming back down from Scotland, and her mother didn’t know. I think that’s evidence they got engaged in Scotland or at least agreed.

          2. You’re right, Ellie. Kate also enrolled in the same course as William at St Andrews and then became attached to his circle of friends.

          3. Wooohohoho, I find all this fascinating! Kate and her mom probably had sights on prince William and now I can understand why they’re called manipulative, boy Carole does really operate with such machination! I wonder how prince Harry escaped Pippa? Maybe she didn’t find him attractive or him her? I honestly thought they would hook up after the Cambidges wedding though I thought it wouldn’t work for brothers to marry sisters.

        2. Nota: Not forgeting the story of Pippa making sure to find out who were *trophy aristos at Edinburgh university and leaving them notes in their pigeon holes asking them to meet with her.

          *trophy aristocrats are the old aristocratic families. Their pedigree is better than the royal family.

          An activity that was widely known and mocked, but it got Pippa what she wanted because she left Edinburgh with only trophy aristocrats as her friends.

          That is an example of a networker if you are being polite about it or a social climber if you are being rude about it.

          1. What? Okay Hera you just gave the definition a new meaning because now, I have no idea who a social climber is and isn’t. I have a question though, why is a aristocrat a better pedigree than royals?
            Maybe this explains why Pippa never hooked up with Harry? She probably was more interested in guys like her current hubby? I’m just curious.

          2. We all network or climb for work reasons so we can get better jobs or better promotions. That is a quid pro quo situation where everyone benefits and personal feelings or evaluations don’t come into it, but rather merit.

            A social climber is a networker who employs that same skill purely for their personal life. Rather than value people for themselves, they value them for the *material* things and status they bring to the social climber’s life.

            And being so mercenary, a social climber is unlikely to be kind or gracious to anyone who doesn’t enhance their life. They only keep relationships that are useful to them in a material way.

            And being so focused they will overlook any unpleasantness either by the object of their goal or any external disadvantages to the connection.

            As Oprah once described these types of people, they are limousine friends only. Meaning they will be your best friends as long as the money and status is high. The minute it is gone, so are they.

            Regarding pedigree of aristocrats and why some have better than royals, it’s all down to bloodlines.

            The original aristocratic families are descendants of the Norman barons that came to England with William the conqueror in 1066. When they married, they preferred to marry amongst themselves or if they married the locals, they chose the highest born to marry. To use a Harry Potter analogy, they are pure bloods. These are the trophy aristocrats. The Percy family is one such family.

            Then you get the second tier of aristocrats. These are usually aristocrats who got their position via merit because their ancestors proved to be canny business people which led to their family being enobled. This group tend to be landed gentry because they made their money by trade or plundering colonies and using that wealth to enhance themselves and sometimes their communities. Sometimes they were educated or military or community leaders who served the crown so well that they were given land and titles. Sometimes you get a mixture of the 3 groups in the one family. The Spencer -Churchill family is one such family – produced Diana and Winston!!

            We tend to hear more about the second type of aristos than the first. The first remain firmly in the shadows and yet occupy every important strategic position in the UK and like to stay out of sight.

            The royal family are considered inferior to the HP pure blood aristocracts because they are a junior branch of the Stuart royal family AND the Hanoverian dynasty is fairly new in British title terms. By that i mean that the junior branch of the family sitting on the throne was considered fairly new even if they could trace their lineage to William the Conqueror.

            Thus Charles was thought to have married UP when he married Diana and she married down in marrying him.

            The good news (if we can call it that) is that Diana and Fergie are descended from the older senior branch of the Stuart royal family which means for the first time in over 300yrs, the senior branch of the family will sit on the British throne via William, Harry, Beatrice and Eugenie.

            All of that said, for everyone else who doesn’t fall in the aristocrats circles, that distinction is lost on them and the royal family is seen as top of the pile. Getting an aristocrat seems like an easier undertaking than the royals.

            My personal view is that Carole’s masterplan was to get aristocrats for her daughters. Kate finding a connection that led directly to William was a stroke of luck that she grabbed and never let go. And if Harry had shown the slightest interest in Pippa, she would have grabbed him and never let him go.

            For years after WK’s wedding, Pippa continued on her quest to romance a titled aristocrat. Perhaps she had always been that way, but Kate’s newly acquired spotlight also illuminated Pippa’s quest. None would have her and one aristo mother famously said Pippa wasn’t marriage material for their son.

            She settled for someone middle class with vast wealth, and she looks happier for it. Poor guy had to wait for ten yrs as she worked it out of her system!!

          3. The Percy family is famous in popular culture because Anne Boleyn wanted to marry Henry Percy and was thwarted because of her inferior pedigree AND her Howard relations had other plans for her involving Henry 8!!!

            You can imagine the memes and jokes when Pippa turned up with the current Percy heir to the ducal title given the Boleyn parallel ascribed to the Middletons.

          4. Once again Hera, thank you for your wonderful lesson. I guess, and as you say, we all network but the levels and motives of our networking determines where we fall on the network vs social climbing spectrum. So it was Harry that was not interested, not vice versa huh? I could have sworn it was Pippa that was not interested and I thought that was because Harry showed no intentions of settling down at that time. There was one article that I read and the author said that the Vegas naked billiard pictures was the best thing that ever happened to Harry. From those pictures, Harry was presented with the chance to look and search deep into his inner soul and make himself feel his anger and pain and make a decision to deal with his issues. Nobody knows where Harry would be if not for those pictures. It could also be that he would have somehow turned his life around, but I personally doubt it very much; he was so blinded by his self destruction at that time. Your post also had me thinking and grudgingly accept that maybe my lovely princess Diana had her motives and was probably not the as innocent a young girl as I thought she was at the time of her courtship and marriage to PoW. Not trying to absolve PoW, but a pattern is beginning to emerge re:my lovely people’s princess Diana. Back onto topic, I hope Pippa is happy with her hubby and I hope Kate too is happy with prince William.

          5. I am confused. When did William become engaged to Kate in Scotland? It must have been after they broke up wasn’t it in 2007? Did they go for a weekend up there. William made it pretty clear in 2005 that it was not on his mind to marry.

          6. Laura: During their engagement interview, in response to the question of when and where they got engaged, William launches into a story about Kenya which is largely suspected to be a lie because it is an exact copy of their friend’s engagement story published in the DM a few weeks earlier, word for word except for countries.

            And immediately after he finishes telling the story, Kate responds with her own tale that starts in Scotland which has no bearing on Kenya. Infact, she doesn’t add anything to the Kenya story but goes full steam ahead with her Scotland story.

            General consensus is that she was most likely telling the truth whilst we know William was definitely lying.

  57. Exactly, MASAMF. Meghan is called manipulative or a gold digger and I’m like, based on what? It seems to come back to her being an actress-which many think is the lowest of the low-and her having her own brand re the Tig. i have never found Meghan manipulative-I only see genuineness. I never expected so many to be so suspicious and downright hostile to Meghan and questioning of her motives. It’s disheartening.

    1. Personally, I find prince Harry to be a very handsome guy and I’m not surprised women fall how him, Megahn included. I find that the claims that Meghan manipulated Harry into anything are dismissing Harry’s natural charm and good looks. Prince Harry seems to be a very charming guy in real life, and dare I repeat, he is very easy on the eyes, a very handsome guy, so for me it was a simple case of these 2 falling for each other right from the get go, no manipulation required.
      In their engagement interview, both Harry and Meghan said they were set up by a friend, and Harry said when he walked into the room, the first thought that came to his mind was “oh wow, I need to up my game” and he said he fell in love with her and knew she was the one for him, from the moment he set his eyes on her. That, to me, confirms the rumours that said prince Harry persued Meghan relentlessly until she agreed to go on a date with him. It could be that the first date was set up, they met and then Meghan was not sure if she wanted to continue seeing him. It took more HIM convincing HER (not the other way round) that they really should give it a try. So in light of all this information, I fail to see where Meghan manipulated Harry in any way, shape or form. And I don’t see any hidden motives on her part, just that she fell in love with this good looking, charming guy, simple as that.

      1. Hey, allow me to clarify. I am not saying that Meghan manipulated Harry, but perhaps, she is manipulating us. The wagons have circled. Meghan has some team. I’m entitled to my opinion and you to yours, but the way people reply to one another is a bit unsettling. I have noted that some fair and balanced regulars have left KMR and this site. Queen Lauri and Rhiannon come to mind. I left KMR for a long time, and decided to check this out. Not as welcoming to all as one would like.

        1. MARY ELIZABETH, please accept my apology if my post unsettled you, it was unintentional. I still don’t understand how Meghan is “manipulative” but you are right, you are entitled tto yr opinion. I’ll just leave it at that, please accept my apology.

        2. I simply believe they where both in the right place at the right time. Harry simply had his light on. I do believe he was earnest in looking for someone serious .. It was reported that Harry’s friends said he was looking for someone who was not afraid of press attention or the spotlight, in comes Misha or the other matchmaker who hears this and says HAVE I GOT THE GIRL FOR YOU! They meet and the rest is history. I don’t think that Meghan is a social climber. She is a networker and she has high goals for herself and she is not afraid of people no matter what their social status is.

          1. MIMIBOBIMI, I completely agree with yr assessment. Many times I’ve tried to understand the term social climber when it comes to Meghan but I still don’t see how she can be coined one. I guess because I don’t know her enough personally, except for just what she has shared with us, I can’t for the life of me see an actress on a TV prime time show, who stayed there for 7+ years, no scandals anywhere, no sex tapes, no nude pictures, nothing, I don’t see how a person who carries themselves with such character can be a manipulative, social climber, gold digger, attention seeker, and everything else that Meghan has been called.
            In this case, Harry has been rumoured to have persued her, he admitted to have set his eyes on her once and decided this is the one for me, thought he needed to up his game so she doesn’t slip away, he was the one that was star struck, rather than her fawning over him, he was the one that did everything in his power to make sure this girl didn’t go anywhere but home with him to become his wife; in light of all that, I just don’t see how the above mentioned negative behaviours fit Meghan TBH, but that’s just me.

        3. I don’t know that I’d call Meghan manipulative but I’d definitely say she’s ambitious and image conscious and makes choices that advance her profile and put her in contact with movers and shakers. She hasn’t done anything awful that I’ve read (despite her sister’s attempts at character assassination, nothing she says is very damning). But some people are put off or suspicious of those who are openly ambitious and status seeking, which I would say Meghan is. But she’s smart and has high standards. Her status seeking involved UN appointments, not going on pap strolls. I think her smarts and her awareness of her public image will serve her well. What she’s able to do will be necessarily constrained by the Royal family and political circumstances but my guess is she will learn quickly.

          1. I still don’t get how making strides to advance yourself is manipulative. Its the American way. It seems it is only wrong when a woman knows her worth and is confident in who she is. Women are labeled difficult or social climbers.

            Meghan had a great lifestyle but hardly overtly glamorous. She wrote think pieces and gave speeches to UN members……that is alot of unnecessary work if one only wants Attention.

          2. @GATITA and @MIMI, I have given up on getting the real difference between a networker and a social climber. From Hera’s explanation up thread, I concluded that Meghan is networker rather than a social climber, because Hera’s definition of a networker fit all the famous people that I know that tirelessly do things for the good of other people. Meghan’s kind of networking (calling UN etc and offering to volunteer with them, so she was named ambassador) is what we all do. Organizations don’t come looking for us, we go out and seek them to allow us to do their work free of charge, but do it for the good of others. When I needed to get back into college here, I was told that getting accepted into college would be difficult without any history of voluntary work on my resume. So I called up the a crisis centre in my area and worked their crisis lines for 4 years. Now I’m not sure if that’d de considered social climbing but I know a high profile person like Meghan I’m sure wouldn’t volunteer on a crisis line but rather in UN which is more in her status as a celebrity. So with that said, I’ll just agree to disagree that Meghan doesn’t fit the description of a suspicious person. I’m not suspicious of Meghan’s kind of image concious ambitious young woman. The person I’d refer to that is not image conscious is Charlie Sheen or the Kardashian girls, people that consider bad publicity better than no publicity, which Meghan isn’t. People will always be suspicious of others regardless of whether those others have not given them reason to, that’s human nature. So I understand when people are suspicious but can’t put a finger to any reason why they feel they don’t trust a person. What I don’t understand though is attaching terms like manipulative and gold digger to a person but really give no evidence of said behaviours.

          3. Masamf: i think you’ve completely misunderstood the difference i was getting at.

            Networking for work purposes is not the same thing as networking for status and money like a social climber.

            One is strictly about your career prospects and the other is about being socially better than everyone else or being reflectively associated with the same.

            With the former, your personal life doesn’t figure and if it doesn’t work out, it’s only a big deal to your bank account.

            With the latter, you strategically befriend very specific people because you have judged that they are better due to their status and money. Being personally associated with them reflects better on you or so you think. Like Carole teaching her children that titled aristocrats are the only people they can befriend and the rest are beneath them.

            Social Climbers are outwardly very charming, but only with or around people they deem worthy. They would rather cross the street than meet you if they thought you were beneath them.

            Unlike networking for career, they judge purely for social reasons.

            MM can be both by dint of her profession which requires alot of networking, and a social climber in her personal life whereby she only has trophy friends who she associates with for what they can do for her social life because having money is not enough to open the doors that she wants to enter. You have to know the right social friend to get in.

            Like Kate meeting William. She had to befriend the right person to get close to William. Hanging around the right schools, right parties, vacation spots wasn’t enough.

            Meeting the right person is rarely something anyone can chance. You can’t manage it by sending a CV and follow up. You have to create a situation where your meeting by ‘chance’ seems very natural to your target, and the resulting ‘friendship’ equally natural. In that sense, you have to manipulate the situation and various people to get what you want, but make it seem very natural.

            And you drop all other relationships that do not fit into the persona you are presenting to your new friends.

          4. Oh no. Hera I thought I got it, 😅😅 . Okay then, I’m proud I’m not a social climber (r: my crisis line work), not sure I believe Megahn to be one either. As for Kate, haaaaah, so hard to admit but, I guess her mom raised her that way? I really don’t know. Thanks for yr great contribution.

  58. Does anyone think that the Queen may pass some patronages to Meghan as Phillip did for Harry?

    By the way, I just figured out that ABC News, one of the major news outlets here in America live streamed Meghan and Harry’s Brixton visit-that is a big deal.

    1. Of course they did. Meghan is a US citizen. US citizen will marry UK Queen’s grandson is a story. It isn’t difficult nor expensive to set up a live-stream over the internet. ABC will look at the numbers for the story by geo-location and viewer numbers to determine where they will set up any future feeds. The interest in the BRF is in the east coast and the horse country of KY and TN. Canada and Toronto in particular are more interested.

      In future, black-oriented media may become more attentive to her life and interests than they are now. And that’s OK because it will draw attention to black society in Toronto, Canada, London, England, Wales, Scotland and NI. The Commonwealth has a rich black history that should be acknowledged and understood by all. Perhaps this will encourage research into the assimilation of African peoples into the royal family, the aristocracy and society of the UK.

      I look forward to that because my country took up and followed the societal norms of England and then parts of it veered off into a self-absorbed agri-business that led to civil war.There has been an uneasy divide throughout the 20th century and into the 21st.

      I view Meghan as an ambitious person who was working at her craft and making a life for herself. She followed a path that she drew and has supported herself. She chose a profession that is artifice – what you see is not me. But you know that. Drama is a profession of assuming a character that is not a representation of the person who is acting. Meghan is not the characters she has portrayed in her acting working life. I don’t assume she even likes the characters she portrays — that is the craft of the actor.

      Let this romance play out. By this time I’m guessing that Meghan understands the consequences of the marriage and what will probably happen if it fails. We don’t really need to shore up the relationship anymore. Nor do we need to keep calling attention to the fact that she is “bi-racial.” She just is. Let her be Meghan, Harry’s beloved.

      1. @GRACEH, can I please marry yr post?😂😂😂 No but seriously I love yr post especially the “no need to keep calling attention to her (Meghan) being biracial….just let Meghan be Meghan Harry’s beloved” that just made me smile.😊😊😊😊

      2. As much as we say her racial identity shouldn’t matter, but the truth of the matter is Meghan being biracial is what has made her story interesting & different. If it were not for this, most black people would simply not be interested in this story. The media’s fetish is also mainly because she is biracial.

        Meghan is not the first American divorcee to have married into the royal family, nor is she the first one who went to college or had a career. There is nothing unique about her story compared to other modern royal brides except for her race.

        1. Meghan story is unique because it is HER story. Why must every thing be a competition with other women? I also beg to differ about black people only being interested in her being biracial. I’m black and have been a royal watcher since Diana. I’ve watched every royal wedding since then. I would watch Harry get married irregardless of who he married. I follow many other black American royal watchers. One in fact is a huge fan of Kate. Please don’t make far reaching statements that are wrong.

          1. It is not far reaching to say many black people are not interested in European royalty. The vast majority could not care less & some of it is partly because of the blemished history of European royals in a lot of African & Caribbean countries.

      1. I’m reading the news and this is blowing up into a real political scandal that might topple the head of UKIP or scuttle the party altogether. Wow. Poor Meghan, I’m so sorry she’s having to deal with this racist wave right out of the gate and that the consequences are so huge and important. I’m sure she never anticipated or wanted to have this kind of impact on the UK political climate right away.

    1. The detailed messages are in the Mail on Sunday. It is absolutely shocking. I’ve heard about the abuse of Meghan but have tried to avoid it. No wonder Harry is a little over protective and she is a little over clingy. She must find these comments almost impossible to understand or tolerate. I am ashamed that a Brit could be so racist.

      1. I’m shocked they came from someone so young and were so hateful.

        I fully expect the older generation of Philip’s vintage to say this sort of things because racism was the norm for them, but a 25yr old woman raised in a post- civil rights, equalities era that is supposed to be more tolerate and better informed is the real shocker for me.

        I would be simply write off anyone in the middle aka 60-40yrs old on the grounds that they were raised by racists, but those generations led the way in equality and civil rights so you won’t find openly racist people in that group even if they are. At the very least they keep it to themselves or express it in subtle ways.

        Anyone below 40yrs old who expresses such views is shocking to me. I am literally speechless that a 25yr old can blithely express such views.

        1. I don’t know how it is in the UK, but this type of racism is fairly common in the USA among the younger generation (maybe more in some regions than others).

    1. I’m not shocked either TBH. This is just a brash version of “Harry should have found an English rose like Kate” that’s I’ve heard so often. It seems this young woman is the in your face kind of person, she knew these texts would be leaked somehow but she didn’t care. There are many that share ms. Jo’s Marney sentiment of feeling Meghan is not good enough for Harry because of her “background”. When the racial undertones have been challenged, the old age “you are using the race card” accusation has been thrown in people’s faces to silence them. I hope when it gets worse, and it will, Harry and Meghan would be strong to take this head on and emerge victorious. This can break a marriage and they need to be ready to deal with such racism not only by the public but also by family members. Meghan stated how when she was a little girl someone in some parking lot called her mom a nigger, and how hurt ms. Doria was by the comment. So Meghan has lived it and knows exactly how it feels to be judged and discriminated on due to the color of yr skin. The coping skills her mother equipped her with will come in handy as she goes through these racism trials.

      1. You know things are bad when even most of the Daily Mail commentators are defending Meghan…

  59. I find it amusing how people say such ugly things because they think no one is gonna find out, and once they get busted now suddenly they never meant to hurt nobody blah blah blah. All of a sudden they sincerely apologize to “their family and friends for letting them down”, I be like “bye Felicia”.

  60. KMR/MMR, I don’t know if the issues are work, physical illness, or this time of year is just really trying. If it is the last, one suggestion I’ve seen floating around is Susannah Conway’s Unravel Your Year 2018 and her Find Your Word 2018. They are free personal workbooks for setting intentions for the new year, doing a lose framework of what you’d like to try, and self-guided journaling in the workbook.


    1. I totally agree!! I tweeted Jo Marny that her apology is cheap and that she is ignorant, vile and a complete embarrassment! I have never been a part of Twitter before, but I feel I need to be part of conversations to defend Meghan from racists. I like Meghan, however, I’m certainly watching to make sure she continues to work hard (as I believe she will) and if she doesn’t, I will criticize, however, I will not tolerate any racist comments and will come to her defence every time!

      1. I agree. She’s made some mistakes, but who wouldn’t? I’m with Leah and give her two years , and I am hoping that in time that as well as having babies (❤️❤️ Hoping ) she will show us her excellent work ethic, continue to read her briefing notes, and continue to work with Harry. I would love them to take over The Princes Trust, I think it is something that could be passed on through the second child…Charlotte next.

        1. Birdy, the DM is reporting that PoW has given control of PT to his butler, I believe he is the one that threw his sons under the bus to whitewash POW. Not sure if it’s true tho

          1. Not him. That would be Mark Bolland who was eventually fired in 2004/2005-ish.

            If you have time, watch the following documentary which Charles tried to ban. It’s all about Mark Bolland.



            Michael Fawcett remains a valued associate / employee and organises all CH parties and receptions. He is also part of the creative team that organises all of Charles’s homes and pet projects eg Dumfries House.

            The only scandal attached to Michael is being caught selling gifts sent to Charles on the down low. He was doing it for his employer and took the fall for it. Publicly he was removed from intimate CH day to day operations to save Charles’s face, but privately he remains very much in the thick of it.

          2. According to the Fail its not the Princes Trust but this:

            Fawcett is also to gain control of the Prince’s Foundation, Charles’s architectural charity, which boasts an income of £2.46 million, according to the latest accounts.

          3. My mistake Hera and thanks for correcting me. Im gonna watch that documentary now, but before I go, I just wanna say the BRF is such a scandalous family (SMH), they make Meghan’s family look like saints, just saying’ 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

            MIMI, I don’t get why a friend would inherit anything from the BRF rather than family members, is this possible or is it allowed or legal?

          4. It makes sense for Fawcett to be put in charge of Charles’s architectural foundation because he has been minutely involved in all of Charles’s architectural endeavours including Dumfries House.

          5. Well, well, well, Herazeus, did I really enjoy the documentary!!😜😜😜 Very insightful indeed, if I’m must say! And William observed by a Australian as controlling? Not surprised, I’m beginning to understand “some ” aspects of this family more. I’m curious to see follow ups to these with all info of the 2 younger Cambs kids and more about prince Harry and Meghan. Once again thank you my dear friend!

  61. Hi MMR. I would like to know if you are feeling better. Not because the posts, but because I’m worried with you. Give us some good notice about you. Good wishes for you.

    1. Ana, so true. Hope KMR is getting much needed rest. Your readers are concerned about you. I hope you are feeling better.

  62. Is anyone else curious about how Lifetime is planning to make a movie about the Prince Harry/Meghan love story? Is there enough content available? Given the short time frame of their relationship with limited media coverage, what will be covered?

    1. Hallmark has been making this movie since at least 1990.

      I’m guessing this new film will follow a tried and embellished script, divorced from reality.

    1. I’m curious why Meghan didn’t attend with him? Do you think she was celebrating or somehow acknowledging MLK Day?

      Or perhaps the tenor of this sort of meeting is outside her scope for now?

      1. I don’t know why Meghan didn’t attend, but I like, it, actually. It’s nice to see them do things separately. I’m looking forward to Meghan doing solo engagements after they are married and she’ll probably be Duchess of Something-or-other.

Comments are closed.

Back To Top