Meghan Markle wore honest-to-God trousers to her second royal event today

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle visit Reprezent 107.3FM in Brixton

Meghan Markle stepped out today in Brixton with Prince Harry. This is her second real event as a royal fiancee, if we’re not counting the Christmas church walk as an event. As many of you know, I really hoped – and still hope – that Meghan would work a lot during the engagement, and be keen to be seen a lot. That comes from a selfish place for me: I want to see more of her. I want lots and lots of photos. And I want her to figure out her own “royal style.”

For today’s event, Meghan wore a Marks & Spencer sweater, Smythe coat and Burberry trousers. Yes, the American girl marrying a prince wore TROUSERS for her second royal event. The Duchess of Cambridge just gasped and dropped her wiglet in shock. Meghan also wore her hair up!! THIS IS SO SHOCKING! Anyway, I absolutely love this coat. It’s gorgeous! I have similar coloring to Meghan, and I always love the way I look in that kind of pale greyish beige too. Smythe calls this color “camel.” The coat costs about $800 off the rack. Here’s video of everyone screaming when Meghan waves:

What else is going on with Meghan and Harry? There were some smaller stories around, which are worth mentioning. Allegedly, the Queen was delighted with Meghan’s jokey Christmas gift – a singing, toy hamster. The Queen liked it because the corgis started playing with it. Beats chutney!! The Daily Mail also reported that Meghan and Harry desperately wanted to hold their wedding reception at Frogmore House (where they took their engagement photos), but the Queen has told them they have to do it at Windsor Castle, just because the castle is a lot bigger. And finally, Meghan’s bitchy sister Samantha claims that Meghan’s father is definitely planning on walking her down the aisle. Whatever, peeps. Just enjoy the fact that we now have an almost-duchess who wears professional-looking trousers for a work event.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle visit Reprezent 107.3FM in Brixton

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle visit Reprezent 107.3FM in Brixton

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle visit Reprezent 107.3FM in Brixton

Photos courtesy of WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

306 Responses to “Meghan Markle wore honest-to-God trousers to her second royal event today”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Zondie says:

    I love seeing the two of them together! They have that engagement love bubble around them.

  2. Maria says:

    Finally, some decent-looking slacks! Love the look! The scarf and the coat look great. Harry’s sweater? Um, okay.

  3. HH says:

    I actually LOVE this whole look. She looks very nice, put together, but she also looks like she came to work. The low, loose bun with slight wisps is lovely. This is the style I wanted from Meghan. Simple, classic, clean.

  4. Ophelia says:

    Glad that they are not too colour-coordinated this time.

  5. KP says:

    I love this look. I would also like to point out that she’s wearing some type of trouser sock and I wonder if that means she’ll no longer go bare-legged?

  6. HelloSunshine says:

    She is so gorgeous! Every time I see a picture of her I’m a little mesmerized, I’m not what it is exactly but she is just so inviting and beautiful! Also if anyone wants to buy me that coat, I’ll bake them as many pies as possible for the rest of our lives 😉

  7. MLR says:

    What is it about her that is SO captivating? I just can’t get enough of her! She is 1,000 times more stylish, approachable, warm and interesting than Kate – whom I like! What an exciting year….

    • HH says:

      I think it’s also that Meghan enjoys meeting people and being involved. She’s been doing this for awhile. In these photos Meghan’s eyes look engaged and her face is lively/animated, but still relaxed. I’ve always noticed that Kate can look at people, but have the 100-yard stare (ie not engaged), or Kate’s face looks like someone told her to “look alive” and she’s grinning like the Cheshire cat, too hard/forced.

      The difference is that Meghan would have been doing such work regardless of marrying Harry. Kate would not be were it not for her marriage to William. Kate would be a lady who lunches. Oddly enough, Pippa is on the charity circuit and doesn’t need to be. She also has a more lively, engaging personality. I’ve come to the realization that Kate will do her job and be fine, she’ll hit the mark, but she’ll rarely-if ever- “wow” me.

      • whatever says:

        Everything is new and exciting for her that’s why she looks engaged. Give it 5 years and she will have a 100-yard stare when doing an engagement on a rainy Tuesday in Scunthorpe.

      • llamas says:

        Kate did look more engaged when she was engaged. I dont know what happened there, probably her real “personality” came out.

      • HH says:

        @whatever – We’ll see. But as I said, Meghan was doing such work before Harry was in the picture, so I think she enjoys this work. Plenty of royals in the BRF and elsewhere don’t have the 100-yard stare. Not to say that she will never be bored at an event, but in general I think she likes meeting people and being of service to the community.

        @llamas – In general, Kate had more of a personality pre-wedding, including the engagement. I think she even had more of a personality on their first overseas trip to Canada. I honestly think Kate was done trying very early on, which is probably due to her putting so much effort into their relationship for so many years. She put one final good foot forward and then was over it.

      • llamas says:

        HH I agree that she put all her effort into getting the prize and once she got it she quickly realized “mehhhh.” She didnt have to keep it up anymore so she didn’t.

      • magnoliarose says:

        . I don’t think so whatever.
        Extroverted people enjoy this stuff because they are energized by people. You have to be curious about people and honestly interested in what they have to say. I am very friendly because I like to meet people and I love hearing about their lives and find all kinds of situations and people interesting. Even a dull person is interesting because I want to find out why they are boring. People are shocked I remember details about them, and it is because I listen because I am interested. Human nature and behavior interest me.
        There is room in the world for all kinds of people, and no personality type is better or right. Just different. Some people are shy and feel awkward in social situations by no fault of their own. It is their nature for whatever reason. I think Kate doesn’t enjoy meeting people and that is ok. But I think she needs to find a way to compensate for it. Like small gatherings. Or sporting events like she likes. It is exhausting for introverts, and their natures shine in other areas rarely seen or appreciated as much as they should be.
        If she and Meghan get along, it will benefit her to do some events together so she could focus on her comfort zones and Meghan could too and interact with each other to bring Kate out. She is always better when Harry is around.

      • HH says:

        @magnoliarose – Agreed. Kate needs to find ways to compensate. I think she does much better when she has something to do for an event as opposed to simply meeting people. Her sport-themed events always seem to be a high-point for her. However, the fact that she hasn’t done so yet, leads me to believe she doesn’t care or she definitely has the wrong team of people. It’s common sense to say if “a” doesn’t work, then let’s try b,c, etc.

      • Nicole says:

        Agreed. I’m an introvert and while I like meeting people…back to back events exhaust me. To the point of where I need a break. Its no coincidence Kate always looks the most engaged in small gatherings instead of the large ones. If that is the case her team should have her do more of those than forcing large overwhelming gatherings on her. See how that goes. Not everyone can be as on as Meghan but it doesnt make us less inviting or open than her. Different strokes

      • Becks says:

        I agree that Kate did look more engaged and “into” events during her engagement. I was looking at pictures from their first Canada trip for some reason the other day and even then she looked much happier and more relaxed and like she was enjoying herself (mostly.)

        I don’t think Kate likes a lot of the events that involve sitting around in a circle and talking to people about “initiatives” but when she is outdoors or doing something active she seems to open up. Her people should schedule more of those kinds of events to help even out the impression that she is “just there so [she] doesn’t get fined.” Her people need to help her play to her strengths. I think they thought she would do a lot better at more staged events and she just doesn’t do well, for whatever reason, so while she still has to do those types of thing, balance them out with events that are more her style, so that there are more images of her genuinely smiling and laughing.

        and Meghan does seem like more of an extrovert so these events are probably a lot easier for her. The crowds probably don’t faze her. Here she looks happy and animated and it really is a striking difference between her and Kate. Time will tell if she changes.

      • Lolo says:

        In fairness, Meghan is an actress, smiling and meeting people (and looking interested while doing so) is part of the job description, especially when you have something to promote. Even being a Deal or No Deal briefcase girl it was literally the main part of her job, to stand and smile and look interested at all times. So she has more training than Kate, which is why she’s out-the-gate better at it. And I think it would be hard not to be enthusiastic about meeting people when they are so excited to see you. Who doesn’t love being openly adored? Kate was the same during the engagement/early marriage part, I think, it’s when “the job” became a slog of boring meetings that her face started to get the better of her. As someone who has trouble “fixing my face” sometimes, I can relate!

      • I agree with Nicole. Small group dynamics seem to agree with Kate and though a bit awkward I don’t think she’s cold, dull or lacks any sparkle. She’s even a bit feisty I’ll bet. Remember how she and Harry used to snicker together in public or the ribbing she gave Will in Australia or the epic eyeroll she gave the volunteer coordinator who admonished her to wrap gifts faster? Where is that Kate? Once she stops trying to be the pish princess she thinks she’s supposed to be we’ll see more personality, imo. In the meantime she should be given events that suit her engagement style.

      • Kelly says:

        I think being born an extrovert and/or laid back is a blessing you’re born with. I have neither, and I cannot explain how difficult it is to be inundated by people. I’m an only child with a huge extended family, and I would often escape to my bedroom to regroup.

        I agree that Kate does better in athletic events. I think she could thrive at participating in PE classes with children, doing the actual events with them. Visiting old folks homes with the children, and teaching them young about meeting people and shaking hands. Maybe participating in on the senior events where they do exercises sitting down. If she’s into animals she should visit animal charities. I am most comfortable with animals and they really relax me.
        Going to children’s hospitals with toys and/or books. There would be no grilling, just kids and parents who appreciate a quick visit, hand shake, and sympathetic smiling.

        I think she could use a tutor, like Diana consulted with on improving her speeches. But Kate’s tutor could handle basic body language, simple standard replies and questions that show interest. No one is as good with kids as Diana, but I think Kate looks more relaxed and engaged with them. Make her platform children and give the rest to others.

      • magnoliarose says:

        I think for an introvert the criticisms about how they are in public probably makes it worse and harder instead of easier. I have sympathy for introverts because I have seen it physically exhaust them to have to be “on” for long periods of time. I like being alone, but I can socialize all day long if I have to. My husband can’t and gets grumpy if the situation is back to back to strangers for long periods of time.
        I think introverts find people interesting in a different way. He likes to focus on one person to get to know. Two maybe. More than that he is polite, but it is enough for an evening. He is always surprised when I know things about people and I am always surprised when he doesn’t.
        Neither of us is extreme on either end but tend toward one side or the other.
        Our society is built more for people with extroverted tendencies, and it is unfair in many ways.
        But for Kate, she has to find a way to organize her life around this fact. It isn’t a fault. Just her nature. If she is inclined. Idk.

      • notasugarhere says:

        KM has no problem at big events when she wants to be there (movie premieres, hanging with Ben Ainslie). When she is in smaller groups doing something she doesn’t want to do – like visiting a homeless shelter? That’s when we see her rolling her eyes and pulling away. No, I’m not talking about the gift wrapping event in NYC but a visit to a homeless shelter in the UK.

        I am a huge introvert, but am required to act extroverted for my job. A lot. At times for 12-14 hours a day. It is exhausting, but I do it because it is my job. I am free to pick another job, KM was free not to marry William. By accepting the proposal, she accepted the job. She can get all the help in the world and is only required to act extroverted for 15-30 minutes at a time.

      • Magnoliarose
        Spot on, per usual.

        When Kate is animated she’s maniacal or over acting for the cameras. When she’s serious she’s bored or dismissive and most of these conclusions are drawn from photos. And the Kate/Ben Ainslie slut shaming gets sooo old. Can we retire it? Please?

      • notasugarhere says:

        Her inability to pay attention during serious events, twirling her hair, rolling her eyes at a homeless shelter and looking blatantly uncomfortable vs. her flirtatious nature with Ainslie?

        She’s not maniacal when it is something she wants to do; she is capable of being animated and not OTT – but only when it is something she has personal interest in. Goes back to her cousin saying she struggles to find interest in anyone around her and things outside her own personal interests.

        You’re assigning slut shaming, that’s how far you’re taking it. She has a flirtatious nature, which shows itself with everyone from from Ainslie to her brother-in-law. Does she need to reel that in on a professional level? Yes. She can learn to school her own actions and reactions. The rest of us have to, she needs to as well.

    • Amy says:

      I think Kate is always hyper aware of the fact that she’s being watched and photographed at all times. She can’t just relax and focus on the person she’s meeting and fully listen to what they’re saying bc she’s afraid that she might be photographed while not smiling. Or that she will miss some type of cue from William or the royal handlers. She seems like she is always scanning, always on alert, always looking for either validation that what she’s doing is right or criticism from someone (William? The crowd? Paps?) that she’s done something that she needs to immediately correct.

      • Anna says:

        She’s had a completely different path than Meghan and different kind of pressure especially with regard to marrying William and him also being the eldest and first of Diana’s children to marry. Also she’s had three extremely difficult pregnancies in the public eye in this time. Can she catch a break?

      • Carrie1 says:

        Yeah I’ve been thinking same for a long time. Kate is fine with me ever since her wedding day when the camera captured her asking William if he was ok. I have such vivid memories of Diana and her boys, any woman they partner with has a greater load. I’m glad both found love that makes them happy. It may not be what all of us would choose but we are not them.

      • Natalie S says:

        Kate may think her job and the purpose of her engagements is the image she projects not the actual activity she’s supposed to be viewing.

        @Anna, Kate lives an obscenely privileged taxpayer funded life. She has had support and money to make every difficulty in her life as easy to cope with as possible including the best medical care in the world. She’s caught many breaks.

      • Kelly says:

        @Amy, I agree with you. Her body language speaks to her discomfort. What tells me she’s more involved with her children than people claim, is her handling of George’s activity in public events, and how she handled Charlotte’s tiny temper tantrum. I’ve seen people incapable of handling this type of thing in public my entire life. They’re exasperated, embarrassed, and worried about what observers are thinking. Kate did not look flustered or even embarrassed when Charlotte did her little throw down/foot stomping with ease and quickly, while knowing the world was watching. Very matter of fact and then went on with their business.

      • Amy says:

        Natalie: that could seriously be it. She might think that the press coverage of an event is more important than being engaged with the people at the actual event. So the scanning thing she does, where she seems to be so aware of everything going on around her and the cameras, rather than the person she’s supposed to be talking to, is bc she’s trying to make sure that she’s looking and smiling at every camera, or smiling at the overall crowd instead of at the individual person. I also think she might be worried that she’s going to miss a cue to walk over here, cross the street, pay attention to the arrival of this important person, curtesy to the Queen, engage with William for a photo, etc. Like she’s nervous that something awesome is going to happen while she’s busy just talking to a normal person. Or she’s worried she’s going to get left behind by William or the other royals if she gets too involved with the crowd. She doesn’t want to do anything that could be photographed and captioned embarrassingly by the paparazzi, so she just sticks with smiling all the time, and looking at the cameras.

    • Princessk says:

      Meghan smiling and looking engaged has nothing to do with the fact that she is an actress , Meghan has always had a warm friendly personality ever since she was a child. It comes natural to her, also Americans are generally more friendly than British people.

  8. Red says:

    I love, love, love that coat. She is ridiculous pretty, so it probably wouldn’t look as good on me as it does on her. I wish we would stop comparing Meghan to Kate though. They will be different in fashion. Doesn’t make one better than the other. Yes, I know I’m boring because I don’t want drama between the two.

  9. KBB says:

    Love it! Her jackets always look too long though. But her makeup is perfection, she’s gorgeous.

    • STRIPE says:

      Agreed. Perhaps it would have been better suited for a dress that was shorter than the coat, rather than pants? It’s all just a little bottom heavy for me. I’m just being nit-picky, though! Overall, the color is lovely and she looks great!

    • Pix says:

      Agree. She is petite and the ill-fitting coat is a bit big in the shoulders and long in the length. However, i do love the overall look – especially her shiny hair!

    • Who ARE These People? says:

      I sympathize with her coat problem because my frame is small on top and very little outwear fits well. As well, my face and head are small and easily overwhelmed. Boys sizes don’t work because they don’t accommodate a woman’s chest. When I do find tailoring that works properly, I love it so much. There aren’t that many Petite sized coats on the market and regular sizes are bulky and hard to tailor. Sad story, I know. Cold first world problems.

      • Kelly says:

        I have the opposite problem. I have broad shoulders and I’m very busty, so I have to wear larger things on top, which make me look twenty pounds heavier. They take away from the fact that I have slim hips long skinny legs, and a small butt. I would prefer to be a pear shape rather than a V shape, which is traditionally masculine. I guess my DD’s lend me some femininity, but keep me from looking “sporty”.

    • Amy says:

      Agree. I think this coat looks a bit too long.

  10. littlemissnaughty says:

    Hair seems a bit haphazard but she does look great and appropriate. I think trousers can look so fantastic as work wear and they don’t have to be boring at all.

  11. SM says:

    Really nice coat. I want it. I hope she takes her title seriously and does use her possition of power to do some significant things in the world as opposed to Kate and Will who are lazy as shit

  12. minx says:

    Love the coat, scarf, pants and shoes. I guess that’s everything.

  13. Valiantly Varnished says:

    Yasss Meghan!! Drag them into the 21st century where women wear PANTS! From the looks of the hems they look like nicely tailored pants as well. She looks great. And I love seeing photos of them together. They have such chemistry!

    • Sophie has worn pants and looks nice in them. Every woman wears what she feels she is most attractive in.

      • Valiantly Varnished says:

        That SHOULD be the case. But considering that royal women are requires to wear stockings that’s clearly NOT the case. And Meghan will be far more visible than Sophie in the future so it’s good to see her with a less-dated fashion sense

      • MissM says:

        There’s nothing wrong with being required to wear stockings, bare legs are unprofessional. I’m in the salon industry and I’ve never been allowed to go bare legged, even when I was in school. The only people who ever complain about it are the girls who are fresh out of school and don’t understand professionalism yet. And for the record, men can only wear trousers. At least us women have options.

      • Valiantly Varnished says:

        @MissM that is an old fashioned and antiquated idea. Bare legs are NOT unprofessional. Mini skirts are unprofessional. Low cut tops are unprofessional. Sneakers are unprofessional. And I say this NOT as a “girl fresh out of college”. But as a 37 year old woman who works in an office. I also happen to work in the HR department of my company. Where we did away with stockings being a required part of our dress code years ago. Why? Because it was old fashioned and antiquated.

      • Kelly says:

        I curse the never-ending trend of going bare legged. My skin is milk white, and almost transparent so every vein is visible. In my face, she can actually see the blue veins in my temple. I’ve tried a hundred different products to fake tan my legs, but no matter how careful I am, they end of blotchy which is actually more embarrassing than the veins.

      • Plantpal says:

        I’m with you, Kelly. My legs look like uncooked chicken skin….I love hose and only go without when it’s too hot to wear. I love tights and I love leggings. I prefer dresses over trousers as I’ve a big butt. Dresses skim over it, trousers emphasize it (in mine own opinion of mine own butt). I’ve also tried to fake tan without success.

        But when all is said and done, I prefer to wait and see how she does because after all “pretty is as pretty does”. I like that she’s on her second work specific event.

        I have noticed that when Kate is around children she has no trouble being engaged. I agree with the comment above; book her into smaller events. She did beautifully with Charlotte’s little tantrum (so cute) and I think she`s busy being a mum to a future king, and a wife to another. And also, tho`she takes it to the limit, I kind of enjoy her theme dressing, and she does go to great effort with the details. Including many buttons….(giggle)……

    • AnaGram says:

      Or the welcome to the 21 century where women shouldn’t be judged for what they wear, rather it be pants, dresses or a thong made of Skittles.
      By saying this you are still having a outdated view of things.People wear what they are comfortable in.
      Rather you think so or not is your opinion.

      • Valiantly Varnished says:

        You’re literally on a gossip site where people talk about what women are wearing. This entire post is about what Meghan is wearing. So spare me the holier than thou finger wagging. If you take issue with what I said then you’re clearly on the wrong site.

      • Erinn says:

        I don’t know. I think it’s kind of holier than thou to assume MM is better than anyone else based on her choice to wear pants… especially when other royal women have worn pants before she was ever involved.

      • Valiantly Varnished says:

        @Erinn please tell me where in my comment did I state she was “better” than anyone??

      • Nancy says:

        Valiantly Varnished: I don’t have a horse in this race, but I just caught your last post……You’re literally on a gossip site where people talk about……….” It drives me nuts when I get “scolded” for having an opinion that is not popular, start throwing the stones, getting called hater. Frustrating. You’re so correct in reminding us this is a gossip site. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, even if God forbid, you’re not a worshiper of MM. It’s just gossip! Supposed to be fun, right?!

  14. Alexandria says:

    She looks like she’s going to work, in a good way. I really love and admire her smile. I can’t smile like that I think. Beautiful coat.

    Can you imagine the screams when they appear with the Obamas?

  15. NotSoSocialButterfly says:

    I would wear the living daylights out of that outfit. So stylish, polished and comfortable.

  16. tw says:

    I’m realizing how low I had set the bar for Kate.

  17. LittlefishMom says:

    Wait, are trousers not allowed? Seriously asking. I LOVE the way she’s dresses as much as I love them. They make me smile.

  18. Red Weather Tiger says:

    She’s BEAMING. They are so much fun to watch. ❤️

  19. manda says:

    My dog has one of those little rolling around and making weird noises hamsters and she chases it all around

  20. Digital Unicorn (aka Betti) says:

    Me likely this look very much, esp the coat – me want that coat. THIS is the kind of look I have been banging on about Katie Keen wearing – its classic, young(ish) and professional.

  21. Vicsy says:

    Wow she’s so beautiful – killer smile and the crowds are def captivated! I love how professional and modern she looks! A young woman out and about – not messing around and there as a brooch for her man! Bingo on every item chosen and all of them combined in one outfit! OMG also cannot believe how casual her hair looks in a low bun with hair strands flying out and those cool rings (saw on DM). Go, Meghan!!!!!

  22. Jussie says:

    Would be a great outfit, but the coat doesn’t fit. At all. It’s massive and loose around the shoulders, and too long for someone of her height.

    • bettyrose says:

      Maybe because I’m short, and maybe because I used to wear a giant oversized winter coat like that when I lived in a cold climate, but I just love it. I mean, I’d like to see more of the outfit, but the coat must be so warm and comfy. She definitely seems comfortable.

    • llamas says:

      Actually, I think the coat length looks great with trousers, regardless of her height. It looks weird when she has a skirt sticking out or is wearing slouchy boots – those are what makes her look too short for it. I personally think she looks phenomenal here.

  23. Omg she is so lovely – like Pippa Middleton and Minnie Driver had a baby lol. Given her height I do wish the coat had stopped mid-thigh but yes, this is a gorgeous look for her.

  24. Aerohead21 says:

    I’d love the coat more if it were just a couple inches shorter. And not just trousers but a MESSY bun. She pulled off a totally business casual look.

  25. BearcatLawyer says:

    I am not a Royal Family sugar by any means, although I adore the Queen and always will for a variety of reasons (especially her dogs, tbh). HOWEVER, thanks to Meghan I would give my left arm for an invitation to this wedding. Harry and Meghan may very well end up ensuring that the U.K. remains a monarchy.

    As an aside, I read a very interesting article in the New York Times on Sunday about the economic and political benefits of monarchies. Apparently having a monarch as titular head of state (while virtually all power and governance are held by elected officials) generally leads to more stable, prosperous societies. Royal families allegedly provide a sense of continuity and quiet, steady leadership. It was unclear to me though whether the benefits outweigh the costs of maintaining a monarchy.

    • notasugarhere says:

      They rank among the happiness nations. Whether or not that is because of being monarchies I don’t know.

      The idea of a neutral, referee head of state is increasingly appealing.

    • Tina says:

      It’s really hard to say. I do think that having a parliamentary system of government is preferable to the alternative. You have to pay for the head of state equivalent anyway. In unitary systems such as the US (at least up until Cheetolini) the ribbon-cutting and ceremonial roles are taken on by the VP and First Lady.

      I can’t quite tell whether it’s the monarchy that provides the benefits or whether an elected or appointed head of state would do just as well, as they have in Ireland and Germany. Germany seems to have too many coalitions, but that is probably unrelated. (I just miss Merkel on the world stage and wish they would sort it out).

    • HH says:

      Many monarchies with that setup are also in Europe, where quality of life is simply a bigger deal than the United States.

      • Tina says:

        It’s not just Europe – three out of the 10 happiest countries are Canada, Australia and New Zealand. They’re like the US but with health care and gun control.

      • HH says:

        Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are all Commonwealth countries. Their head of state is QEII. In these countries, on matters of social issues, their views and politics are far more in line with European politics than the U.S, especially on the three hot button issues of healthcare, gun control, and reproductive rights. I mean “hot button” in the U.S. Those countries are long past those issues. Furthermore, all of their major political parties would be left leaning in the U.S., from moderate to far left. The only ways these countries are like the U.S. is sharing in some similarities from being a “western” nation and former British colony.

      • Tina says:

        Sure, they’re further to the left politically than the US, but they’re not as far left as anywhere in Western Europe, even the UK. And taxes are lower than in Europe and culturally they’re more similar to the US than they are European. There are wide-open spaces and, for lack of a better term, a more “bro”-ey culture than anywhere in Europe.

      • DM2 says:

        Tina, I have to ask, have you ever *been* to Canada? To Old Quebec, the Maritimes, Upper Canada? To say that Canada is culturally more similar to the US than Europe (esp. the UK & France) is hilarious. What is a “bro”-ey culture? That’s a new one on me… :)

      • Tina says:

        @DM2, sure! I lived in Toronto for a year on a fellowship, and visited various provinces. I visited Newfoundland for a conference, and that was by far the most European place I visited outside of Quebec. It is like Ireland, but it is very much a North American version of Ireland. Similarly, Quebec is “European” by North American standards, but it is a very North American place. As a Brit, Canada felt very American to me (I also lived in the Washington DC area for two years, which was very different and felt much more southern to me than Canada).

        I knew that “bro”-ey would be a terrible way to describe it, but I couldn’t find another word. It’s a performative version of masculinity. Cowboy hats, horses, very much tied to sport (in the US, baseball and football, in Canada, hockey, in NZ, rugby and in Australia, Aussie rules, I suppose). Somehow tied to the land. We’d call it blokey.

      • HH says:

        @Tina – That’s the difference. I’m American and Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have felt distinctly different than the U.S. Yes there are certainly commonalities, as there are bound to be given the cultural over lap, but not enough that I would put them closer to the spectrum of the U.S. than the UK and Europe.

        And Rugby is quite popular in the UK. Not to mention that football/soccer is ridiculously huge almost everywhere outside of the U.S. The U.S. seems to be more tied to sport in terms of having a new one for everyone season, and it being big at the school level, typically high school and college.

        Also, DC feeling southern?! That’s interesting. While it’s obviously close to Virginia, it’s the parts of VA that are NOT southern. Having lived in the South and in DC for quite some time, they’re very different. Now DC isn’t Manhattan, but that’s the first I’ve heard of it’s southern feel.

      • Tina says:

        @HH, have you ever lived outside the US? I really don’t understand what “the difference” is for you. For me, as a Brit, Canada, Australia and NZ seem closer to the US to me than they do to Europe. For you, as an American, I’m not getting a sense of why they would be more European, as opposed to generally foreign.

        I’m aware that rugby (union – you probably don’t know the difference) is big in the UK (and Ireland, and Australia, and South Africa, and Canada, and especially NZ). Soccer is big everywhere, but it’s about the 3rd biggest sport in NZ, the 5th biggest sport in Australia and the 10th biggest sport in Canada and the US.

        And I meant that DC felt more southern than other places in the US I’ve visited. And not necessarily geographically. Los Angeles was less southern than DC. Rural Pennsylvania? Much more southern.

      • HH says:

        @Tina – Yes, actually! I took some time to travel after graduate school (thanks, grandma.) I’ve lived in both CAN and AUS for 6 mos each and spent a month in NZ after my stay in AUS. While these three certainly felt different than Europe, and I would not call them European flat out, there was a stronger tie to UK/Europe/Europeans than to than the U.S . Visually? Obviously not. I didn’t land there (or in t he case of CAN, drive there) and feel foreign or have a culture shock in that sense. However, culturally and politically? Definitely.

        Also, I think there’s just a semantic difference with your use of southern. LA is not less southern than DC. I wouldn’t use the word southern with LA at all. It certainly has a laid back feel, but I wouldn’t put it on any sort of more/less Southern spectrum. The same goes for rural Pennsylvania or other rural areas that aren’t in the south. I would use “country” to describe these areas/people/way of life. While country and Southern have many overlaps, I wouldn’t use them interchangeably and don’t feel that they are. Again, that could be because I’m from the U.S. and I’ve lived in a large city, a mid-sized city, a Midwestern suburb, a small northern town and southern GA. There are just cultural nuances/dynamics that are pronounced when you’ve experienced them.

      • Tina says:

        @HH – it’s all relative. You perceive Canada and Australia to have stronger ties to Europe than to the US. I perceive the opposite. That is probably in large part because of where we come from (and also the trade agreements – we’d kill for NAFTA at this point, and let’s not even mention CETA). I would also be very interested to hear what Canadians, Australians and NZers have to say on the subject, especially those who have travelled to both the US and the UK. And I should say that Aus/NZ are very much their own thing, and think of themselves as Asian and neither European nor American.

        As for “southern” vs “country”, I’m sure you’re right. It’s your country after all. But to go back to the beginning of the discussion, I was attempting to distinguish between the way that sport is perceived in US/Can/Aus/Nz and how it is perceived in Europe. There are fundamental differences there. Football/soccer is universal, that can be discounted. It is in the other sports that the nuances can be seen.

      • Helenw says:

        I’m from European ancestry, Canadian, grew up in France and England until high school time. Canada i s definitely more European than American. In fact, transitioning from Canada to England an back was almost no transitioning. And i say this as a Torontonian. Had I been living in the Maritimes, this would had been double true.

      • Hh says:

        @Tina- Yes, agreed. That’s why I mentioned it earlier!

        In the beginning of the conversation, you made a general comment that CAN, AUS, and NZ were more similar to the US than U.K./Europe. There was no mention of sport. However, even so, I would still disagree. Again, we’re coming at it from different angles. :)

      • Tina says:

        @Helenw, but have you ever lived in the US? The school systems, for example, are very similar between the US and Canada, but very different between Canada and the UK or France.

        And @HH – I think we focus on those aspects of culture that make us feel particularly foreign. I feel similarly nervous at a petrol station in rural US, Canada or Australia, because it’s very foreign to my own experience. My point about sport wasn’t about sport per se, but about how sport (particularly the dominant sport) is conjoined with a notion of masculinity in those countries that is different to how soccer is conjoined with masculinity in the UK and Europe.

    • Veronica says:

      Maybe the countries with monarchies are happy because they generally have great social safety nets for their people – nothing to do with a monarchy. The happiest countries are Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Canada, Australia. England, with the most famous monarchs in the world, didn’t make the top ten. The top ten have the highest taxes, which pay for strong social foundations. All of them have very strong safety nets from cradle to grave with free college as well.
      Let’s not make conclusions from the wrong assumptions here. I cannot imagine any world in which supporting a monarchy makes people happy in their everyday lives. Doesn’t make any sense.

  26. Who ARE These People? says:

    Love the pants (but those heels are so high! at least they’re not stiletto).

    I keep thinking about how much it may mean for the young POC of England to see her in that position.

    • sharron says:

      It’s great that this first-ish visit was to Brixton, one of the most culturally diverse parts of London /the UK. Brixton was originally a run-down suburb populated by Caribbean immigrants, later thriving due to local culture (the local markets, music etc) becoming ‘trendy’, especially in the 1990s. It’s 44% BAME of which 39% self-identify as ‘black’ (i.e. not asian).

      So it’s a big deal she went there! The studio helps young people avoid the gun/knife culture that dominates the borough.

  27. Clara says:

    She is so beautiful, what addition to the Royal Family she will be, I hope these two put Will and Kate to shame and work hard.

    • I’ve been in the getting to know her stage and I really like the Meghan I’m meeting on almost all counts. I’m stoked for the wedding and really hope these two go from the honeymoon phase to a truly healthy and enduring love!
      Wedding dress? Tiara? Jewelry? Hair style and reception venue are all questions I can’t wait to see answered! I also think it’d be wonderful if she wore the Spencer Tiara at the wedding (as long as its appropriate-I’m American so not sure if that would somehow be a snub to Harry’s paternal Family) Both because it’s gorgeous and I think it would be a way to include Harry’s mom in his wedding which has to be a sensitive time. My mama passed away and at big occasions I miss her so much it hurts and i’m 46.

      • notasugarhere says:

        It is sentimental but isn’t really appropriate. It is to be worn by the women of the Spencer family, and technically she isn’t going to be a Spencer.

        Criticism wise it could be bad. Everything from “Does she think she is Diana?” to “The Queen hates her and wouldn’t loan her a tiara – so Harry had to beg this tiara from his Uncle”. Ditto if she were to wear a brand new tiara. The criticism would be either about the cost (I’d lead that charge, they don’t need to be buying new tiaras) or “Queen hates her so she wouldn’t loan her a royal tiara” etc.

        My hope is she wears one from the British Royal collection, like the Teck Crescent or Diamond Lozenge if it is still exists. That would become the one she wears for most formal occasions.

      • Petty Riperton says:

        That’s why I feel she should forgo the whole tiara mess since the ones that are left for her to wear are ugly.

      • seesittellsit says:

        @notasugar – I kind of agree with your tiara assessment. They’ll pick something out from the collection for her to wear on an ongoing basis. The Spencer tiara is out of the question, for the reasons you stated; Kate has worn the Lover’s Knot tiara several times already, so I don’t think that would work out. But there are plenty of others, including ones that the Queen Mother wore early on while Duchess of York and retired when she became Queen Consort. I’m thinking maybe the Greek key tiara? It’s not too big and Pss. Anne used to wear it. They did buy Fergie a new one for her wedding, with a matching necklace I think, but them days is over – the austerity and recession have redefined the landscape, and advertising that they can of course go out and spend $100K on jewels for Harry’s bride is probably not the way to go.

      • LAK says:

        There are so many tiaras in the vault for her to pick from. From the vault i hanker after:
        -Oriental Circlet
        -Queen Mary’s fringe (worn by HM and Anne at their weddings)
        -Strathmore Rose (though this one is thought to be too fragile)
        -Teck Crescent
        -Teck circle (usually worn as a necklace by Margaret, but returned to the crown on her death)

        And if she has to borrow a tiara from outside the family, how about Victoria’s Sapphire coronet which is thought to be owned by the V and A museum.

      • seesittellsit says:

        @LAK – I LOVE the Strathmore rose – why don’t they have the frame redone?! Shame to have that one out of sight. Am I remembering that the Queen Mother wore that down on her forehead like a circlet, or am I mixing that up with another?

        The Fringe Tiara – is that the Russian one that was supposed to look like the classic Russian woman’s head adornment? That one is quite large and I think HM still wears it frequently. My guess is that they will lend her one in size more along the lines of the Cartier tiara that Kate wore. I’m very partial to the clean lines in the Greek key one. I think it would suit Markle’s modernist tastes better than something flowery.

        As you can see, I’m really in this for the jewelry discussions.

      • bluhare says:

        I like the Vladimir tiara, and she could dangle whatever stones she wanted on it.

      • LAK says:

        Seeittellit: the Greek key belongs to Anne and her family. Mind you, since the tiara is borrowed, and Anne has already said nice things about their (H&M) relationship, perhaps she could lend it to her.

        I’d forgotten that HM still wears the fringe. It’s been a long time.

        The Vladimir is too close a copy of the CLK in design AND HM still wears it regularly, so i think that’s out of the question.

        Being so close in resemblance to the CLK, the Copy-Kate outcry would be too much.

        Mind you, of all HM’s frequently worn tiaras, i adore the girls of Great Britain and Ireland. That one would suit any other wearer because it is so light and whimsical and fun. If it were in contention, that is the ultimate tiara i would want MM to get.

        Fingers crossed she doesn’t give her the Brazilian Aquamarine and the Burmese Ruby tiaras. Those things are a crime against tiaras.

        One more thing, even though tiaras are usually life loaners, i hope the cartier Halo and papyrus are still in contention for MM. Perhaps not the Cartier Halo as that was worn on a memorable occassion, but no one ever remembers Kate in the papyrus and that has the whimsy of the Strathmore rose.

      • imqrious2 says:

        Do you think they’d let her wear something more ostentatious than the Cartier, which Kate wore? If so, the Valdmir would be gorgeous with the emeralds for MM, as would the Fringe, the Oriental Circlet would be lovely, as well. But somehow, I don’t think TQ will lend her something too big and showy.

      • notasugarhere says:

        LAK, the Queen Victoria Sapphire Coronet *is* owned by the V&A, after their successful fund raising campaign to keep it from leaving the country after a private sale. Gifted by William Bollinger.

        The Girls is said to be HM’s best, so I don’t think MM will get that one. I think the bandeau base would be pretty just for the wedding, but don’t think it likely.

        Any tiara designed by HM needs to be dismantled and turned in to something else. Neither she nor Edward have the gift of jewelry design that Prince Phillip has.

        I doubt MM will wear the Cartier halo, Papyrus, or Lovers Knot. Two tiaras already worn in the last seven years? I think the Cartier will go back to storage or stay touring in Cartier exhibits; KM will alternate between Papyrus and Knot.

        I’m hoping for Teck (my long-stated) or the Diamond Lozenge (without the silly pearl toppers) because it is simple and modern. Lozenge hasn’t been seen since the 1950s, so it may have been sold off quietly. It is a good starter tiara like the halo.

        They have another fringe, Queen Adelaide’s Diamond Fringe, which was turned back to a necklace years ago. It is shorter in height than their other two fringes, but much longer in length. Returned to HM when the Queen Mum passed away.

      • emerald eyes says:

        The Oriental Circlet has only ever been worn by Queen Regnants and Queen Consorts of Great Britain and it is highly highly unlikely to be worn by Meghan as a wedding tiara. If HerMaj is alive, there is no way the Girls tiara will be on Meghan’s head in any way shape or form – it is worn exclusively by the Queen.

        The same goes for the Vladimir. Both fringes are rather large (the Alexandra much more so imposing than Queen Mary’s) and also very, very unlikely contenders. The Alexandra fringe is simply too ostentatious and Queen Mary’s Fringe was worn by the Queen and her own daughter, while marry-ins have made do with other options. It would be a major departure to lend it to Meghan.

        It is believed the Teck Circle tiara is in David LInley’s possession, if he still owns it. Also not likely to be seen on Meghan’s head, unless the Queen works out a deal to return it.

        The Cartier Halo will be on tour in Australia until July, so it’s out. The Teck Crescent would be gorgeous, but perhaps not visually the best since it does have the Crescent motif and in these times people get their noses out of joint over anything.

        Since HM is obviously very fond of Harry and his intended, it is not beyond the world of possibility that the CLK might be pressed into duty. But again, not likely, since Kate seems to have taken a liking to it.

        So I think it’s going to be the Strathmore Rose, by pure elimination.

      • LAK says:

        The Teck circlet was returned to HM after Margaret died.

        CLK is definitely Kate’s life loaner. Ditto the papyrus though she’s worn that only once.

        Didn’t realise the Cartier Halo was on permanent loan to the cartier exhibition.

        I dislike Queen Alexandra’s fringe tiara. Ditto Queen Adelaide’s fringe tiara. Queen Mary’s fringe tiara remains the best of the 3 in my opinion.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Adelaide’s fringe is odd to me. Queen Mum wore it successfully, but I think it would be hard to make it work with modern hairstyles.

    • wendy says:

      @LAK — as a multi-year lurker I would just like to say – yours is the name I look for on a royal post and you have given me an entire evening of pure joy googling through photos of tiaras (ok, I was aided by tequila)…your knowledge is inspiring.

  28. tmbg says:

    It’s high time a woman in that family wore pants. Why are women always expected to wear dresses and skirts? Blah, give me pants any day!

    • BearcatLawyer says:

      I’m with you. While I have a nice collection of skirts and dresses, I am most comfortable in pants. About the only place I have yet to wear pants is federal court. When I was a baby lawyer, wearing pantsuits in federal court was just not done. The message I got back then was that federal courts at all levels meant dark coloured skirt suits, pantyhose, and heels – full stop. Even though I doubt anyone would care if I wore a pantsuit in this day and age, I fear I would feel awkward and anxious.

      • tmbg says:

        Fortunately I’ve only worked in offices where pants are acceptable, but 20 years ago when I had just started out working, one middle-aged female coworker kept bugging me about why I’d wear pants. This was the sort of woman who’d wear a dress every day. She kept asking me if I was like Ellen DeGeneres (Ellen had that TV show in the 90s). What did my pants have to do with sexuality? It’s just all about the comfort and frankly I’m not fond of my shapeless chicken legs. Remembering that burns me up all over again. I’m glad I no longer work with cave people.

      • Hazel says:

        I find the heels role baffling. What if you, like me, have an hereditary neuropathy (CMT), which makes the wearing of heels impossible? Seems sexist, too.

      • Lady D says:

        BearcatL, you should wear a pant suit to work just once. You might find it incredibly freeing, and never go back. Of course, it might also feel extremely weird, but it would be a memorable day either way.

    • Suze says:

      The Countess of Wessex has worn pants for engagements.

  29. notasugarhere says:

    Frogmore would have been a nice place for their reception, as it was for Peter and Autumn. I don’t remember where Sophie and Edward had their reception after their Windsor wedding. It could be for security reasons, since Frogmore is pretty open and accessible.

    • MissM says:

      Frogmore isn’t large enough without a tent in the yard which is what Peter and Autumn did but they also had a much smaller guest list then H&M will. There simply isn’t enough space for 800-1000 people without breaking the bank. I think the whole point of them saying it has to be at Windsor is that Windsor already has enough space. Plus security will already be in place instead of spreading it thin.
      They could have a smaller evening patty at frogmore with their friends but the big reception doesn’t make any sense.

  30. YankLynn says:

    AND she took her pretty coat off when she was inside like “normal” people do ;)

  31. Kate says:

    YESSSS. Spot on. I love her more every day!

  32. Adele Dazeem says:

    Wow. What a great outfit! I do think she has great style and aside from a few speedbumps (like that engagement photo dress) she will come into her own and be a British style icon.

  33. Suze says:

    She is beautiful. The coat and pants are perfection. Excellent make up. Very professional. I hope she continues differentiating herself by wearing professional pants and different coat styles. They work for her.

    I personally would work the scarf around her neck a bit differently. I give her points for pulling back her hair. She figured that out early on. She’ll get more durable pulled back styles on her radar soon.

    Very good showing.

  34. Girl_ninja says:

    Love the whole look for both if them. Harry has upped his style game and I’m sure Meg is the reason.

  35. Tiffany says:

    I want that coat. I want the outfit.

    That is all.

  36. seesittellsit says:

    I like this coat much better. She doesn’t look swallowed up. I like the heels and trousers, too. Casual chic.

  37. KiddV says:

    She looks wonderful. I love her outfit, I wouldn’t change anything. I would like to see the top she has on underneath, am I missing the photos somewhere?

    I’m not sure I like Harry’s style of coat lately. I love wool pea coats, short and long, on men so that may be my problem. I need to get used to something different. He looks nice, though.

  38. Ira says:

    I thought female royals can’t wear trousers for royal events. I never saw any royals wear pants before unless it’s sport related events.

  39. Guest says:

    She looks great. Love the pants, and the messy type buns. You should read the dailymail and their bs about how Meghan should learn from Kate and her hair.

  40. Really says:

    The pants are great. The only great thing. The coat fits well, but the color is so bland. Scarf is overwhelming and blends in with coat. Hair is tied back but still falling in her face? Not a good look and is not professional.

    • seesittellsit says:

      I think the light color is to be sure people can see her – the royals always try to wear something that people in backs of crowd can see. Except for red, she doesn’t seem to be fond of jewel tones, maybe they don’t favor her coloring, so the light neutrals are the choice. It also avoids the “too many colors” pitfall. Re the hair – well, that is kind of a “look”. As the rest of the outfit is casual, I don’t object to it. And full disclosure again: I hate “helmet hair”. It can be a challenge to combine a smooth look and avoid helmet head, though.

  41. Jeannie says:

    Meghan looks beautiful! I love her gift to the queen. (I’m sure you look beautiful in that color, too, Kaiser!) i am totally here for all the coat/scarf porn. Anything that can make surviving mid-atlantic temperatures (😥🔫) stylish, im here for.

  42. HoustonGrl says:

    She looks great, it’s nice to see pants that aren’t spray on jeggings. And her sweater was divine!! She seemed to do very well when she was interacting with people, very natural.

  43. Ennie says:

    LOVE her ensemble.
    She seems to choose beautiful coats, but has had problems with the fit of them. I think this one looks like it fits nicely.
    I really covet her outfit.

  44. Dr. Mrs. The Monarch says:

    She really stepped up with this outfit. Hair up, work pants, including a British fashion label- good choices. The only thing I’m not crazy about is the scarf swallowing her face a bit. She can’t hide during a public event. It looks like she is trying to cover up her royal hickeys- they are clearly loved up!

  45. Rachael says:

    Omg, I love her for wearing pants! She looks simultaneously professional, modern, and stylish! This is everything that Kate never pulls off.

  46. Cee says:

    Amazing outfit. I want to wear that coat to work. Those trousers!

  47. Maria says:

    What I like about the look is that it doesn’t seem like she spent hours and hours trying to get everything just right. With Kate ( I know you shouldn’t compare) everything has to be just so. All the buttons have to be perfectly aligned. This look is chic but casual.

  48. Karen says:

    Love, love love this outfit! Contemporary and appropriate for the event. You do not need a dress to interact with young people-it comes off to formal.

  49. Ollie says:

    Black pants and high heels always look good. Super combo.
    It also adds height.
    Too bad the coat is way too big again. Too long for her and way too wide on the shoulders. It looks like shoulder pads and ruins her proportions.

    Hair is a bit messy IMO because of the cold windy weather.

    • Veronica says:

      I think Meghan likes to dress like she is a much taller woman. Kate would look great in this coat with this sweater. Meghan should stick to very tailored coats, IMHO. Not a lot around her neck. She isn’t very tall, and she is petite.

  50. Pandy says:

    Burberry pants. That’s $$$$.

    • Veronica says:

      Well, so much for being frugal. Burberry pants start at around $700. For pants. Sheesh.
      Yes, Kate is a spendthrift, too, but she will be the future Queen or consort, whatever you call it. “_

    • HoustonGrl says:

      At least they’re less than $75K.

    • imqrious2 says:

      True, but they’re also so well made, they can last forever (if you don’t gain weight/change size). A perfectly tailored pair of black pants are a staple, and a great investment. Always go big on your investment pieces. They are timeless and can be worn forever.

    • magnoliarose says:

      700 dollars for a well made black pants for someone like Meghan to wear is not expensive. Show me a royal in a 200 dollar outfit consistently during public engagements.
      Those pants can be worn over and over in many different combinations.

    • wendy says:

      Are we really going to pretend $700 is reasonable for a pair of well-made black trousers that will last a few years worth of engagements?

      She remains a private citizen until the wedding so I *personally* don’t care what she spends on clothing, she looks great. I am just pointing out the mental gymnastics.

    • Natalie S says:

      I hope Meghan chooses clothes from ethical brands. I like that Kate wears Beulah even if I don’t always like the look of the outfit. And on a more cynical note, it would help with people tallying the cost of her wardrobe. The stunts with cheaper clothes to seem more relatable is effective but quite often those cheap clothes and even many times expensive designer clothes are made in deplorable conditions.

    • Helenw says:

      Eh, I have Burberry pants. More than one pair. As well as Burberry skirts and sweaters and tops. While they are not GAP price level, they are not really expensive in the world of fashion. And the fabrics and quality are impeccable. My lawyer definitely has a full Burberry wardrobe. They are generally considered good high quality business wear. On sale, one can get the pants at 40% off.

  51. Cher says:

    Hallelujah, pants. I love the entire outfit.

  52. Chloeee says:

    That outfit is amazing. I about melted when she waved to the crowd it was so cute and endearing. Who am I?! Girlfriend has charm in spades.

  53. Mirja says:

    nope, I don’t like the style. Hair is too messy for a public event. Scarf and coat don’t really match and don’t really add to each other by way of contrast. Markle’s head is drowning in that scarf. Trousers are too long and slightly ridiculous the way they swing round her ankles. Another Princess High Heels. Coat and scarf and hair are too messy together and no fun. Though she can pull of the colours and her makeup is good in colour and not too much but flakey-unprofessional and it shows in the pictures. I like that she did wear trousers.

    Yep, she has charm and is smiling a lot and she seems to like this a lot. This reminds me of Kate who grinned like the toothpaste girl in her first engagements.

  54. my3cents says:

    Love her outfit, very polished.
    The shoulder pads are a bit too much, she is petite and they overpower and give the coat an ill fit.

  55. Bianca says:

    Look at the video, it’s all about her! And the ring;)

    • Sienna says:

      I just can’t warm up to Meghan. She always seems to be an actress playing the part of Harry’s loving fiancée. I’m just not getting a very genuine vibe from her/them. Maybe it would be easier to take them seriously if they had dated longer than 18 months (plus or minus several months depending on when they really met/started dating), if they hadn’t been trying to play coy with when and how they met, and she didn’t try to act like Harry’s proposal was such a surprise out of nowhere like she stated in their engagement interview. I mean, c’mon! She quit her TV show and moved her dogs (or at least one of them) to England. I’m sure that was under the promise of an engagement. I also don’t like the mistruths and misrepresentations about when/how they started dating. Even in the same interview they will look at the interviewer straight in the eye and say they had 6 months of dating in privacy before the media/public found out. They will go on to say that they met in mid July 2016 and their relationship was made public the end of October 2016. That’s not 6 months! Their relationship has just seemed very rushed and misrepresented by them to the general public. I just wonder why and on who’s end? Was it Meghan pushing for this or Harry or both? I really feel in the sense that Meghan has given up a heck of a lot more than Harry has for this relationship. She certainly has a lot more to lose if it doesn’t last long term than he has. I hope it’s worth it for her.

  56. Becks says:

    I think Meghan looks great. Her look is not the most polished look I’ve seen, but she looks pretty and happy and the clothes don’t seem like they are wearing her, which is often the case with Kate.

    I do think her coats tend to overwhelm her though and I wonder if that’s because she is so small, or all her coats are meant for walking around Toronto in January, so they are a bit heavier than those we may see Kate wearing. I imagine as she gets into the swing of things she will start having her coats better tailored.

  57. I think Megan looks very professional and quite attractive. And I get that they’re in love and excited to be getting married. But, come on, does she have to hang on him like some love-sick teenager?
    And another thing – she’s fooling with her hair just as much as Kate does. Why does she get a pass and Kate gets criticized?

    • HoustonGrl says:

      I agree she’s being too clingy, but Kate definitely does not get a pass on the hair around here.

      • Sienna says:

        I agree that she’s way too clingy. She’s also too touchy/feely when she out with Harry on these public engagements. She’s also trying to act sort of shy and has a “deer caught in the headlights” looks when she used to represent herself as an accomplished, confident, forward thinking woman. It’s coming across like she’s acting because this is how she thinks she’s supposed to act.

      • Lolo says:

        I think she clings because that’s what HE likes. He seems like he really wants to be seen (by her and others) as her protector and I think it’s him that wants to be holding hands all the time. Will doesn’t go so much for the touchy-feely stuff, so he and Kate don’t do it. Also both Harry and Will seem to regard the BRF as a fate worse than death (though, of course, not one whose perks they would willingly give up), so maybe he’s worried she’ll realize it’s not worth it and bolt, and he’s guarding against that. . . by PHYSICALLY RESTRAINING HER. Ha!

      • notasugarhere says:

        If you watch the video, when they get out of the car he reaches his hand back for her and then she takes his hand. He was also rubbing her back as they met their greeters. He’s the one initiating the public contact.

    • Maria says:

      Kate got plenty of passes in the beginning. But many on this site got tired of the constant tossing, flipping, and smoothing that she did continuously to her hair. And Meghan so far has been critized for the cost of the engagement dress, (me included), the Christmas coat and hat, the trip to Monaco, and the issues with her dogs, the engagement interview. She is getting a pass for today, because today she is ticking all the right boxes. Will it continue? who knows.

    • Amy says:

      I feel like such a Scrooge saying it, and it doesn’t seem to be a popular opinion on here, but I agree with you guys, she is really hanging on him in every picture. Maybe if it weren’t every picture it would be better, or maybe if it looked like he was reciprocating a bit more, but so far, it always looks like she’s leaning hard on him. I don’t know why I find it unappealing. I’m not a prude, I’m not all about modesty, I don’t hate PDA in general. I don’t hate couples who hold hands in general. I think it’s the clingy/hanging part of this that is putting me off. Like she’s either unsure of herself and using him as a security blanket, or like she feels like they’re not a “real” couple unless they’re always touching. I guess it just seems too juvenile for someone who is A) innher thirties and B) has been married before.

    • Becks says:

      Eh, if they never touched at all, people would have a field day. I know we keep saying “Meghan is an actress and should be used to this” but I think marrying into the royal family is a step beyond being a supporting actress on Suits. It’s not just the crowds. It’s knowing that everything thing you do is going to be torn apart – are they touching too much? not enough? Who touched whom first? etc.

      Remember how people on here were convinced they had had a monster fight on Christmas morning?

      I think Harry feels protective of her and he is showing it in a different way than William did with Kate. And everytime I see FB or IG comments about how MM has no “class or breeding” (that was from yesterday)I get it a little bit more.

  58. liriel says:

    I’m a broken record but I love the concept but she doesn’t have the height to truly pull it off

  59. JaneDoesWork says:

    I actually really like this outfit, but i HATE her hair wisps. Combined with the fluffy shirt and loose pants, its too much and it makes her look disheveled. There are photos of them exiting and her hair looks so much better, I suspect that that is because she ended up tucking the wisps behind her ears as she realized she was fiddling with it while talking with people and it was unprofessional. Hopefully she learns from this.

    • Princessk says:

      I think she looks lovely and natural, and I hope she eventually lets her natural curly hair come out.
      I don’t like comparing the two women too much but someone on DM said: ” Kate is often too overwhelmed by her hair and eyeliner”.
      There is nothing better than looking as natural as possible, it also helps with the ageing process, as you have to keep piling on make up for years and years.

  60. L says:

    You’d freak if kate wore all black, try playing fair. Also, ‘m pretty sure Meghan has some “help” in her hair so quit ragging on Kate for having extensions.

    • LAK says:

      Meghan has yet to put out a palace statement denying her extensions.

      Until she uses the might of the Palace to deny the extensions like Kate did, we will go on ignoring her hair and whatever help she has!!!

      • magnoliarose says:

        We don’t care. It isn’t a big deal until it is made a big deal. Women in the 60s wore hairpieces all the time, and there is a time for them. Lying about it was unnecessary. You don’t respond to something that trivial.

    • Amy says:

      I don’t understand where some of these “if Kate did it, she’d be crucified” things are coming from. Like if late wore all black we’d hate it? I don’t think so. I think Kate would look awesome and very chic and cool in all black. She generally looks a little twee. Or someone said Kate would be crucified if she did the messy bun. Again, that seems like the opposite of what most people’s reaction would be, as most people seem to think Kate’s hair looks too little girly and overly done with the barrel curls. I think a messy bun would be just as cool and chic on Kate. I just don’t get the gut reaction constantly that seems to not even take into account the actual opinions people have of Kate. If people think she looks too twee and dresses like a toddler, why would they be against a more grown up and cool look?

  61. Jayna says:

    I don’t mind the coat being that long. It’s a beautiful coat and well-fitted. Her pants are too long and take away from a finished look.

    If Kate’s hair was that messy, the hyper-critical Kate posters would have a field day. “Oh, how dare she part her hair in the middle at her age. Look at all those straggly pieces in her face. The bun is a mess in the back with pieces sticking out.” I can hear it now. LOL

    She is beautiful and seemed happy and engaged, with a great smile. They look happy and in love. My sister couldn’t believe her age. she thought she was 27, not 37.

  62. Sherry says:

    I love her style and I love that they are so obviously in love! I can’t wait for this wedding in May!

  63. Beluga says:

    Her outfit is On Point – I love it! Chic, professional, unfussy, hair up, tick tick tick tick!

    And I love love LOVE how engaged she and Harry are with the crowd and the people they’re visiting. Such a contrast to petulant William and distant Kate. (And yes, I’m going to compare them. Not their looks, but their work ethics and performances in the role).

  64. Reece says:

    Love all of it! Harry too!
    I swear she makes Harry look better. Maybe it’s the love haze?

  65. A says:

    I like it. She looks cute, with the scarf and the jacket. I do wish the scarf wasn’t as much as it was, since it almost drowns out her face a bit, but she looks nice. Her face shape is more apparent when she wears her hair up, and I really like it too, so she looks cute all around.

    Also, I can’t tell for sure, but this coat seems like something she’s owned before? So that’s nice also, I think, that she’s mostly trying to wear things that she’s got and not stuff she’s purchased out of the gate for this. I hope she keeps that up after she gets married too.

  66. LADIABLA says:

    Love this outfit. I’d gladly take it off her hands :) She looks great

  67. PiMo says:

    Best look so far, since the engagement announcement.

    I love the sweater, don’t mind the length of her coat. I would have worn booties with loose pants, but that is a minor complaint. Loved her loose bun, I am not bothered by KM constantly touching her hair, so MM doing so too is not a problem.

    I still think she loves fame and is enjoying attention, that was my impression of her upon seeing her Instagram account and The Tig. They had been reinforced by the VF cover, the $75,000 engagement dress and the reality TV engagement interview. While some see this as a good quality for a future member of the royal family, I think it is too much celebrity and royals are not celebrities. If they are, then why have them? Don’t we have enough celebrities already and their heirs, like Blue Ivy, North West, Shiloh, etc?

  68. Sharon Lea says:

    Love the slacks! OMG, we have been wanting Kate to wear them once, just once, for years we were begging. Love the casual work wear. She and Harry easily show their personality, not sure why it has been so abysmally missing from W&K. Definitely see some Julia Roberts in Meghan in some pictures too, very naturally pretty.

  69. Sienna says:

    @BECKS – That’s fine. They’re under no obligation to answer any questions they don’t want to, but at least don’t lie about it. Decline to answer the question instead. If they’re lying about a simple thing like when/how they met, it makes you wonder what else they could be lying about. They are being too cutesy and coy about it like they’re trying to pull one over on everyone, and some are not amused.

  70. Sienna says:

    @LOLO – Maybe Harry likes it, too, but Meghan always seems to be the one reaching for his hand or rubbing his arm/back. It’s too much for me, and I hope she tones it down.

    On another note, she’s really the one who gave up a lot for this relationship, so I hope it’s everything she was expecting and more. Once the newness wears off and the wedding has taken place and they’re no longer meeting up on a secret rendezvous every 2 weeks, and day to day life and living together 24/7 has set in, will she still feel the same? Will she be bored?

    • Kaz says:

      I feel sorry for her. Meghan is disappearing….Facebook etc. Her whole independant personna is being subjugated to meet the requirements of ‘The Firm’ so I hope her marriage to Harry is worth it. Run for the hills Meghan, there is still time!

      On a fashion note -how wonderful to see someone in smart pants. Excellent choice Megs!

  71. Treesandpets says:

    Her outfit is smashing – elegant and well-proportioned. Great textures; quality fabrics; beautiful tones. I think the long coat gives her outfit a classy vibe and she isn’t too short for it; especially with the high heels. She also looks genuinely happy to be there and seems to enjoy interacting with people which is refreshing. However, I hate the hairdo – it’s messy and too casual for the outfit and situation. Loose front wisps do nothing for anyone. It really detracts from her early-days ‘royal’ look. Doesn’t flatter her face either. That said, I naively hope she inspires a trend for people to dress up more. I’m so over the super-casual, totally dressed down attire I see too much and everywhere now. Let’s celebrate clothes again! Dressed-down has it’s place for sure, but I miss seeing the more dressed-up and put-together outfits that used to be so popular and interesting. Here’s hoping…

  72. KatMatz says:

    She suddenly seems to be trying too hard and I see the actress in her. It’s bugging me.

  73. KatMatz says:

    She suddenly seems to be trying too hard and I see the actress in her. It’s bugging me. Malay, she stopped Botox….just saying.

  74. Danna says:

    Please. I am begging you. Please stop using the word keen every effing time you write about the royals. Whether it’s subtle sarcasm, an attempt to be clever, or trying to use British slang in keeping with the subject, it’s getting beyond tiresome.

  75. Lifeside says:

    I like it. She looks like a normal girl going in for her office job, in the nicest possible way. The M&S sweater I think shows she’s learnt from the 75k dress debacle. Good for her.

    I think this is the tone she needs to keep. Harry is well down in line for the throne and his role is pretty much meaningless. The public won’t tolerate frivolity or pomp from Meghan. I don’t even mind the messy hair for the same reason.

  76. Sienna says:

    @BECKS – I’m sorry, I looked back and I meant to reply to @SNOWFLAKE. I wish we were able to reply directly back to those who replied to one of our comments. My apologies.

  77. Starlight says:

    Trousers, autographs, selfies, hand holding, engagements before marriage, it’s very Hollywood