Will the Queen lend Meghan Markle a tiara for her wedding, and which tiara will it be?

Prince Harry and fiancee Meghan Markle during a visit to Cardiff Castle as part of their royal duties

I’ll admit to sometimes getting diverted by all of the talk about royal jewelry. What I wouldn’t give to spend an entire day in Queen Elizabeth’s jewelry vault. I don’t know if the Queen simply does it like previous kings and queens, but QEII tends to take many historic jewelry pieces “out of circulation” for years, sometimes decades at a time. The royal jewelry vault is chock full of fascinating pieces, many of which haven’t been seen on a princess, duchess or queen in a long time. Which brings me to this: IF Meghan Markle is given a tiara to wear on her wedding day, I seriously doubt the Queen would give her one of the tiaras we’ve already seen on the Duchess of Cambridge. There are plenty of tiaras in the jewelry vault: why make two “commoner brides” wear the same three tiaras? And why would the Queen give Meghan the exact same tiara that Kate wore to her wedding?

With less than two months to go until Meghan Markle’s big day, royal watchers have started speculating on what tiara the bride-to-be might wear as she walks down the aisle. And experts say it’s likely that Prince Harry’s fiancee will give a nod to Princess Diana with her choice of tiara in May, if she does indeed choose to wear one.

The Spencer Tiara, which was famously worn by Diana on her wedding day to Prince Charles in 1981, is likely to be a contender for Meghan’s upcoming nuptials at Windsor Castle.

However, the 36-year-old former Suits actress won’t be following in the footsteps of Kate by wearing the Cartier Halo Scroll Tiara on her wedding day, as the dazzling headpiece will be on display in Australia at the time. Meanwhile, the Cambridge Lover’s Knot tiara – another favourite of Diana’s that has also been worn by the Duchess of Cambridge on several occasions – is another frontrunner.

Some experts have suggested that Meghan won’t wear a tiara at all, or will have one specially commissioned for her – like the Duchess of York on her wedding day.

[From The Daily Mail]

I think the Spencer Tiara would be lovely on Meghan and it would be a lovely way to honor Diana, but the Queen doesn’t own the Spencer Tiara! The Earl Spencer (Diana’s brother Charles) owns the Spencer Tiara and I have my doubts about whether he would loan it out. The Daily Mail also suggests the Cambridge Lover’s Knot, the Cartier Halo tiara, the Strathmore Rose Tiara and Lotus Flower tiara, all of which have been worn by Kate at least once. One thing about the Queen is that she tends to “give” one tiara to a woman marrying into the family, so that the tiara becomes tied to one particular woman in her lifetime. Kate hasn’t had that, although you could probably argue that the title of “the Duchess of Cambridge” does tie nicely to “the Cambridge Lover’s Knot tiara.” Still, I hope Meghan either gets a tiara we haven’t seen on Kate, or they just commission a new one for her.

Meghan Markle during a visit to youth-orientated radio station, Reprezent FM, in Brixton, south London to learn about its work supporting young people

Meghan Markle, wearing a white Stephen Jones beret and a matching Amanda Wakeley crombie coat, attends the Commonwealth Day service at Westminster Abbey with her fiance Prince Harry

Photos courtesy of WENN, Backgrid, PCN.

Related stories

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

294 Responses to “Will the Queen lend Meghan Markle a tiara for her wedding, and which tiara will it be?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Merritt says:

    It won’t be the Carter Halo, since that tiara will be on loan to Cartier at that time for an exhibit. Maybe Queen Mary’s Lozenge tiara if it still exists. It is small so it would be easier for someone new to tiaras to wear. The Strathmore Rose, has not been worn by Kate, at least not publicly. I suppose it is a possibility, but it seems a like a young tiara, something you would give as an 18th birthday tiara.


    • notasugarhere says:

      The Lozenge is lovely if it is still around. Delicate and modern. Teck Crescent remains a strong option (possibly in Camilla’s possession), with Strathmore Rose an unlikely third. I think the Cartier bracelet one mentioned below is too small and isn’t really a tiara, more of a headband.

      • NotSoSocialButterfly says:

        I think the Teck would be a lovely choice.http://orderofsplendor.blogspot.com/2011/04/tiara-thursday-teck-tiaras.html

      • Alexandria says:

        Nota I suspect Teck Crescent would not be seen for a long time because some weirdos would think it has a Muslim symbol.

      • Siiiigh says:

        Omg yes yes yes yesssssssssssssssssssssssssss. Anything. Everything. If ever there was a head upon which to set a tiara, it’s this chick’s. She’s so gorgeous it hurts, and all of these suggestions would look incredible on her. I find some of the more popular tiaras a bit too hefty. The Teck is absolutely divine. The Strathmore Rose or the Lozenge was my secret hope, but I somehow utterly forgot about the Teck. I have absolutely no idea if any of that would be Meghan’s style, but we’re talking a royal wedding here; Who knows what her style is for that? She doesn’t seem to like very fussy items. She’s chic and streamlined, so perhaps she’d go for something like the Lozenge. I can’t imagine her *not* wearing a tiara. It’s not a rule or anything I suppose, but I can’t think of a reason why she would choose not to adorn herself with something even if it’s just a bright, colorful flower crown or something.
        On the subject of color, I do wish she would wear a tiara with colored stones in it, because I personally find diamonds a little boring. Juicy, desirable, etc., but….meh. I LOVE the colorful tiaras of the Swedish royal women. It’d be pretty neat for Meghan to use the money from her massive success in Suits to commission herself her own damn tiara. She’s a fine independent duchess who don’t need no Queen. No, wait…. :D You feel me, though.
        Can y’all tell I’m maybe a little bit excited for this wedding? Haha!

      • LAK says:

        The strathmore is fragile. That’s one of the reasons it’s out of circulation. Not sure the Queen cares enough to fix it, and i hope she doesn’t decide to rework it because she has no eye for design – see Sophie’s wedding tiara!

      • NotSoSocialButterfly says:


        How about the lovely Teck Circle pendant/ tiara? It is on the same page in the link above. Its low profile would pair well with the modern, sleek gown that I’d imagine she’d prefer based on her sartorial choices.

      • Alexandria says:

        @notsosocialbutterfly, yep I’ve posted below that the Teck Circle may edge out the Teck Crescent. I prefer the Crescent personally.

      • Selena Castle says:

        @LAK It wasn’t The Queen that redesigned the tiara worn by Sophie Rhys-Jones on her wedding day, it was David Thomas of Asprey and Garrard. It is also steeped in history, rumoured to have been four detachable anthemions from Queen Victoria’s regal circlet. It may not be to everyone’s taste but the history of the jewels mean something more, at times like these, for a lot of people.

      • LAK says:

        Selena: i know all that, you can actually see the original Victoria circlet that broke in bits. It’s ugly. Especially when you compare it to most of her other circlets.

        Also, i thought it was well known and therefore self-evident that the jewels are maintained and or redesigned at Garrard. Any redesigns are a colloboration between the royal and the company. It’s never upto the company which jewels they choose to redesign and or present the final design to the royal as a fait accompli.

        In the case of HM, that collaboration produces ugly tiaras (and jewels). She’s the only female royal in the BRF of the past 100yrs with a tin eye for jewellery design.

        Regarding the history of the jewels, clearly HM doesn’t hold the reverence you hold for them because what she has done to them in the redesign is criminal. At least on that point we can agree. And that is why i hope she doesn’t take it upon herself to design a tiara for MM.

    • Unoriginal Commenter says:

      Thanks, Merritt. I was going to say the Strathmore Rose tiara hasn’t been seen in decades. I think it is goregeous, but folks (on blogs) have reported that they could see Meghan picking something a little less “fussy,” like the lozenge or the Cartier Bracelet Bandeau. I have become obsessed with the order of slendor blog, haha!

    • PrincessK says:

      Nobody has mentioned the Lotus Flower tiara.

      • notasugarhere says:

        It has already been worn by Kate Middleton, which generally takes it off the list of possibilities. HM is known for lifetime loans of tiaras to one person, not repeating those tiaras on any others.

      • Bridget says:

        We don’t really have a ton to go off of to know if they’re all lifetime loans (I’ve seen it posited that a couple of tiaras were specifically but it’s unconfirmed) really just Kate, Camilla, and Sophie. I would actually guess that Hm has specific pieces reserved for specific roles, but both Kate and Camilla have dipped into older pieces that aren’t known for being worn by the Queen or really anyone else (aside from the Cambridge Lover’s Knot). If you look, you can see a distinct difference in what Camilla gets, which are giant, big gun tiaras.

      • LAK says:

        Bridget: Camilla is wearing QM’s jewellery. Charles was gifted most of it and he is giving it to Camilla to wear.

        Apart from her family jewellery, nearly every ‘new’ piece of bling Camilla wears belonged to QM.

      • willowisp says:

        The Lotus Flower is my pick, and it’s been loaned to and worn by many, not just Kate Middleton.


      • LAK says:

        Willowisp: the tiaras tend to be life loaners. When it appeared on Margaret, the assumption was that it had been given to her outright since it belonged to the QM before her. Consequently her DIL, Serena, borrowed it for her wedding because it was the family tiara. (All the women in your link sans Kate)

        When Margaret died, most of her jewellery, including several tiaras were auctioned to pay inheritance tax. The Lotus wasn’t amongst the auctioned jewels and assumption was that the family had held onto it.

        Which is why most people were surprised to see it on Kate because that implies 2 things:

        1. It was always a life loaner to Margaret returned to the family after her death

        2. Or HM purchased it from Margaret’s estate to join rest of the family collection of tiaras.

      • willowisp says:

        @LAK, I hope HM did purchase it and I would truly love to see it on MM on wedding day. I think the Lotus is stunning and elegant the Deco influence gives it a modern look.

      • willowisp says:

        P.S. LAK, your comments are extremely informative and appreciated.

      • Bridget says:

        EVerything I’ve read posits that the Queen Mother’s tiaras went back into the main vault, not to Charles directly. It’s hard to get direct answers though.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Bridget some of the items are privately owned, like the Greville jewels that were willed to her personally. Those may have been inherited by Charles directly, not to HM or to the nation, like her diamond ring which Charles used for Camilla’s engagement ring.

      • Lady D says:

        @LAK, ” Camilla is wearing QM’s jewellery. Charles was gifted most of it”
        Now why wouldn’t it go to Ann the Princess Royal? (asking indignantly on the Princess’s behalf)
        To me, it makes more sense for the jewels to go her only granddaughter. Did it have to go to Charles because he’s the heir? Tax purposes? Blatant favouritism?
        Also, I was of the impression the QM to put it mildly, despised Camilla? She must have known Camilla was going to end up with the jewels eventually.

      • LAK says:

        Lady D: Charles was her favourite grandchild AND she always treated him better than his siblings because he was the heir. In the main she made sure her everyone was taken care of in terms of trusts and legacies, including great-grandkids, but Charles received her personal things and homes eg Castle Mey.

      • Lady D says:

        Thanks for the answer, LAK. It must be hard on siblings growing up with one treated far more special than the rest. Without good parenting, it would probably breed a lot of resentment between them.

    • Megan says:

      I wish one of the problems in my life was deciding which tiara to wear.

      • magnoliarose says:

        Believe me; you don’t want that kind of stress in your life. It is exhausting. I have to pick one in the morning and then choose another for the evening. Every single day. You are the lucky one not to carry this burden. Sigh.

    • Laure says:

      Merritt thank you for that link – I’ve been down a rabbit hole or royal tiaras this morning and it’s not a bad way to spend a morning!

  2. Rachel says:

    I’m not really much of a royal watcher, so I rarely have an opinion on stuff like this. However, I think it would be nice if the Queen did lend her a tiara with a history behind it, rather than commissioning a new one.

  3. Girl_ninja says:

    It would be lovely if Lady Diana’s brother lent Meghan and Harry the Spencer tiara.

    • Whatever says:

      Its not going to be the Spencer family tiara either. She’s not a Spencer girl about to get married nor is she marrying in to the Spencer family. This was also pointed out when Kate got engaged so I don’t know why anybody thinks this tiara is in the running.

      On a side note, Princess Eugenie will probably wear her mothers Wedding day tiara (rumoured to have been commissioned by the BRF) which looks very similar to the Spencer family tiara and just as beautiful.

    • Merritt says:

      No it wouldn’t. All it would do is increase them number of comparisons between Meghan and Diana.

    • Shotcaller says:

      Fun random fact: Diana’s grandfather, Jack Spencer was good friends with one Lionel Lupton. They attended Trinity College at Cambridge and made the decision to enlist together and serve in the army. Lupton’s sister, Olive Middleton, was Kate’s great grandmother. In 1962 Prince Philip went on a two month aerial tour of South America. Captain Peter Middleton, Kate’s grandfather, was selected as his co-pilot. Small world.

    • Bethany F says:

      Not happening. Spencer tiara is for Spencer women only. this came up during Kate and William’s wedding too and was debunked.

      just more fan fiction from people who can’t let Diana go

    • LAK says:

      It’s ridiculous that the DM or anyone thinks the Spencer tiara is in the ring. Neither Harry nor Meghan are Spencers. Therefore the Spencer tiara isn’t their family tiara. Only Spencer daughters or wives can use that tiara.

      • himmiefan says:

        I don’t get it. Harry’s a member of the Spencer family through his mother Diana, so yeah, you could say that Megan is marrying into the Spencer family. So, maybe the Earl could loan her the tiara as a way of remembering Diana.

      • LAK says:

        Harry is a Mountbatten -Windsor. That is his family. He may have Spencer blood, but he is only a cadet member of the family with no hope of inheriting anything by right.

        I think it’s being forgetten that Meghan is not marrying a Spencer. She is marrying a Mountbatten – Windsor. She is not making vows to the house of Spencer, but to the houee of Mountbatten -Windsor.

        Finally, Tiara rules are that ONLY wives and daughters in the male line can wear the family tiara. Diana was a Spencer daughter in the male line. Ditto her sisters Sarah and Jane and Charles Spencer’s various wives and daughters.

        The Mountbatten – Windsors have a vault full of family tiaras that Mghan can borrow as she is marrying a Mountbatten-Windsor. Why would she borrow a tiara from another family? If she is uncomfortable with the family’s tiaras, she can go to a jeweller and borrow one from them.

      • Masamf says:

        @Lak I don’t believe Meghan is uncomfortable with wearing (or not) the Mountbatten-Windsor tiaras, she hasn’t given any indication of how she feels one way or another. You could probably say “if her fans are uncomfortable with Meghan….” but really Meghan has not said anything to indicate what she feels about wearing a tiara (or not wearing one). Its the fans that are going overboard with this tiara stuff.

      • LAK says:

        Masamf: i think it’s Diana fans who want to see major Spencer bling at William (because this conversation was a thing then too) and Harry’s wedding. Nevermind the rules.

      • Masamf says:

        Lak, I agree. I thought it was Meghan fans that want to one up on William/Kate, you know like Meghan wears it where Kate didn’t na na na na…LOL. Anyways, I think the fans need to give this Spencer tiara thing a rest.

      • Bridget says:

        I don’t know that I would say that the tiara has “rules”. Ultimately, it’s at the owner’s discretion – after all, they chose to continue to lend it to Diana through her time as Princess of Wales, even though she was no longer a “Spencer”. But the bigger issue is that Charles Spencer isn’t loaning it, nor would a Windsor bride wear the Spencer tiara.

      • Trying Again says:

        Thank you Lak! I had NO idea tiara rules existed but it makes so much sense. Up until today I thought tiaras were amazingly gorgeous expensive diamond filled uncomfortable historical head pieces for royal women.

      • LAK says:

        Bridget: She remained a blood Spencer DAUGHTER in the male line regardless of her marriage therefore she could borrow the Spencer family tiara.

        These rules are very patriarchal in nature and extremely rigidly adhered to. The wives and daughters can borrow the family tiara if it is available.

        The next time we shall see the Spencer tiara will be either at the weddings of his daughters or on his current wife at various tiara events should she attend.

      • Bridget says:

        IF Charles Spencer wanted to, he could break the “rule”. After all, it’s tradition, not law. But the issue is that Charles Spencer doesn’t want to. And Diana’s use of that tiara was a big deal and the source of bad blood for Charles Spencer. Diana’s status as a Spencer daughter didn’t give her ownership or the right to borrow the tiara whenever she felt like, rather her father (who owned it) decided to give permission. To me, that’s an important distinction to be made in this discussion.

      • magnoliarose says:


        Even with the rules could it be loaned to Meghan? I am just interested if rules can be broken. Not they will be or if the Earl can break the rule considering Diana’s status as an icon.

      • LAK says:

        Bridget, that’s not how this works. She had the CLK tiara so it wasn’t as if she had no tiara to fall back on. Her father / brother could loan her the tiara because she was a Spencer and it was her family tiara.

        Now if they were irritated at how often she borrowed it, that’s another matter and they could always refuse. Just as Charles refused to lend her a house on the Spencer estate. She didn’t hold a gun to their heads and insist they lend her the tiara. And her borrowing the tiara wasn’t outside the rules within family.

        Magnoliarose: The answer is no, but if it happened, it would be the first time it’s happened.

      • himmiefan says:

        LAK – I guess we have different ideas of family on the US side of the pond, and certainly no tiara rules (no tiaras actually, but the rules are very interesting).

      • Liberty says:

        LAK, i noted the jeweler’s comment about sharing the tiara below (miles below – we are hosting some students from Tokyo for the weekend, so I am late to the thread, quick break while they take a walk with Mr L)…. my thought is also that I can see the Spencers breaking tradition for Harry, all circumstances being so unusual in the loss of his mother.

        On a less caring note, the loan and use would add to the tiara’s value in terms of Althorp estate tourism etc.

        I am probably wrong, but am bravely venturing this idea, because Charles Spencer….well.

  4. Alix says:

    There’s no way Meghan will be married without a tiara. I doubt it’ll be one worn by Diana or Kate, though.

    • imqrious2 says:

      I don’t think it will be one worn by Diana or Kate either, too much of an opening for comparison. While I don’t think it can be grander than Kate’s (being the direct line heir’s wife), I wouldn’t mind seeing Meghan in the Nizam of Hyderabad tiara (though it might be a bit large for her small frame): http://queensjewelvault.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-nizam-of-hyderabad-rose-brooches.html.

      Frankly though, I wouldn’t be surprise if they commission one for her that will be more simple and “streamlined”, with a more modern esthetic. Even a simple strand of diamonds (if diamonds can be called “simple” lol) entwined with real flowers could be lovely.

      Or perhaps just diamond hair clips? The Botswana Flower brooch (symbolic as Meg’s center diamond stone is from Botswana) could be pinned into the back/side of an updo. There are so many lovely brooches that can be used: http://queensjewelvault.blogspot.com/p/brooches.html

      • notasugarhere says:

        HM destroyed the Nizam. She had it torn apart and used the diamonds to create the ugly Burmese Ruby Tiara.

        In these financial times, I doubt they could get away with buying her a new tiara. Brooches instead of a tiara would be seen as a sign (by the anti crowd) that HM doesn’t like Meghan and wouldn’t loan her a tiara.

        That written, Lady Sarah Chatto’s wedding tiara was fashioned out of brooches given to her mother by her father. One her it looked great, just like her simple chiffon gown and lookalike bridesmaids outfits were a perfect match for her style.

      • CleaK says:

        I’m kind of hoping that she breaks tradition and goes with a colored stone tiara, maybe the Maria Feodorovna sapphire one. If really love to see her in the Persian turquoise one of Margaret’s. It wasn’t sold after she died and it might have gone back to the Queen like the lotus flower did.
        I’m betting it will be something new though, make something commissioned from Diana’s jewels to echo the diamonds in her ring.

      • Bridget says:

        She wouldn’t use brooches on their own, but I wouldn’t be shocked if she commissioned a tiara made out of re-purposed brooches (similar to Sohpie’s). I think the reason why Kate wasn’t gifted a tiara of her own is because as the future Queen and Princess of Wales she’ll have access to pieces of her own eventually.

      • LAK says:

        Goodness no to Sophie’s tiara. That was made up of a broken up circlet tiara belonging to Victoria. The Queen did a very bad job of reworking the pieces. If we didn’t know better one would assume that she hated Sophie for giving her that monstrosity.

        As for the Nizam of Hydrabad tiara…..this is the monstrosity it was turned into: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/71/cf/da/71cfda3d7ea7f018210a9f16f097edf6.jpg

        As Nota points out, Lady Sarah had a delightful tiara made out of 3 brooches: https://royalhats.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/1994-07-14-6r.jpg?w=869

    • imqrious2 says:

      Thanks for the info, Nota. I didn’t know that about the tiara 😊

  5. Goats on the Roof says:

    Kate hasn’t worn the Strathmore Rose. That one has been out of circulation for a long while.

  6. Shotcaller says:

    Either way don’t let Princess Michael of Kent pick it out.

  7. Lauri says:

    The Queen Mother’s Cartier Bandeau Tiara is my favorite choice for Meghan. I think the size and shape would work well with her style and modern feel.


    Of course my second favorite is the Queen Mother’s Strathmore Rose Tiara, who doesn’t love a floral tiara? Given Meghan’s love of flowers this would also make an excellent choice for her.


    • Frida says:

      The Bandeau is my favorite too. It’s understated and modern, very much Meg’s style.

      • Whatever says:


        The Cartier Bandeau would be perfect for Meghan. It won’t overwhelm her delicate features.

    • jeanne says:

      i LOVE that tiara, especially if she wore a simple, steamlined classic dress. it could be a showstopping look. NO lace and embellishments. just chic.

    • Coz' says:

      I couldn’t agree more on both the Strathmore Rose tiara and the Cartier Bandeau.
      The QM had an excellent tast for hair jewellery !

    • minx says:

      Beautiful, both of them!

    • Veronica says:

      I like the bandeau. It serms the most modern of all of them.

    • Natalie S says:

      My vote is for the bandeau.

    • Lady D says:

      If you follow the bandeau page down, you will see QE in the most gorgeous emerald necklace I think I’ve ever seen. Out of all the Queen’s jewelry that necklace has to rate among the top 3.

  8. Adele Dazeem says:

    Wasn’t Diana’s brother a little difficult w Diana about the Spencer tiara in the later years? While I’d love to see it, I seriously doubt it will be the Spencer tiara.

    • LAK says:

      The Spencer Tiara is not an option. It’s only available to Spencer wives and daughters. Neither Harry nor Meghan are Spencers.

  9. Lainey says:

    The Spencer tiara is NOT an option!! How hard is it for people to accept this. She’s not marrying into the Spencer family so she cannot wear it!!

    • Bethany F says:

      exactly!! We will see the Spencer tiara again when one of the Earl’s daughters marry. They’re all in their mid 20s by now and there’s what, 3 daughters? It’s theirs to wear as Spencer women, like it was for Diana as the daughter of Johnny Spencer when he was Earl.

  10. kimbers says:

    I vote no to the borrowed tiara. it’s too much. Something more unique to Meg would be nicer. She already has jewels from Diana.

    sidenote: that pic of the white beret! so dorky I snorted laughing. love it! Meg must have a great personality to wear that particular one. lol

    • NotSoSocialButterfly says:

      Re: the beret- I am of the opinion that Meghan needs a wider brimmed hat to balance her strong jaw- that’s why the beret and the small brown fascinator look dorky. They are of balance for her facial shape. It gives her a triangle noggin. She needs to invert that profile.

  11. minx says:

    I hope it’s a pretty one and that it doesn’t overwhelm her, she’s so tiny.

  12. Alyrae says:

    Tiara speculation is right up my alley.

    I think it would be appropriate for her to wear one of Princess Margaret’s tiaras that have (hopefully) been returned to the royal vault. My two top wishes would be tiaras that have colored stones.

    The Triumph of Love Tiara: http://orderofsplendor.blogspot.com/2013/08/tiara-thursday-persian-turquoise-tiara.html
    Kind of a big gun, but I love it!

    Maria Feodorovna’s Sapphire Bandeau http://orderofsplendor.blogspot.com/2011/03/tiara-thursday-marie-feodorovnas.html
    This has a modern design that seems very Meghan.

    • Lauri says:

      Interesting choices Alyrae! The Persian Turquoise Tiara is lovely but I think it might be a bit too big for Meghan, although I’d love to see Camilla wear she can really rock those larger tiaras.

      The Sapphire Bandeau tiara is also lovely, very modern with a clean look that’s right up Meghan’s alley. My only hesitation with this tiara is that the large center stone gives it a rather Cyclops look to it. Princess Madeline of Sweden wears a similar tiara and for some reason I can’t unsee the large third eye hovering above her head.

      Tiara speculation is the best part of the lead up to royal weddings imho.

      • Alexandria says:

        I’m with Lauri on the bandeau. I find the big stone too distracting for a wedding. Maybe on other occasions Meghan can rock it.

    • homeslice says:

      Oh that sapphire one is lovely! It’s my birthstone so I have an affintity for them…

    • notasugarhere says:

      They’re lovely and maybe for future outings? The BRF tends to do diamond-only tiaras for brides.

      There might be another small option. Sophie wore what looked like a small daisy diamond tiara. Only wore it once, but some speculate it is a subset of Princess Alice’s tiara. The rest of the diamonds were used for HM’s engagement ring and wedding bracelet, but the core diamond floral button tiara may have survived.

    • notasugarhere says:

      I forgot, there are two other diamond fringes that are options mentioned on an earlier thread. HM has a total of three, one of which she wears regularly and wore for her own wedding. There are two other fringe tiaras in the British royal collection that haven’t been seen in years.

    • willowisp says:

      Natural turquoise is rarer than diamonds. I too would love to see MM in a turquoise tiara.

      She’d also look stunning in diamonds and sapphires.

      Here’s a nice slide show of the royal tiaras, many discussed here:


  13. Anna says:

    With the engagement ring already including Diana’s diamonds, the Spencer tiara might be a bit too much. Maybe a new tiara (or bracelet) designed by Charles to honour both of Harry’s parents.

    • Lauri says:

      Charles gifted Kate a bracelet and earrings for her wedding to William so I imagine that he’ll do the same for Meghan and I can’t wait to see what he comes up with. Sigh…I miss the custom of the bride receiving stunning jewels as wedding gifts. My husband gave me a mountain bike as a wedding gift and try as I might I just couldn’t find a way to wear it! Lol!

      • notasugarhere says:

        Are you talking about her wedding earrings? Those were commissioned and paid by the Middletons not Charles.

      • Shotcaller says:

        Lauri is correct. Charles gifted Kate a bracelet, ring and earring set made of both yellow and white gold. It was a wedding present although obviously not worn on her wedding day. Kate has been seen wearing the set for a few state dinners however. Little known fact: William also gave Kate his mother’s sapphire and diamond earrings.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Lauri referenced “wedding”, so that is what I responded to. Wedding not marriage, which to me are different things. Accuracy of language. The little tired-old-theme diamond oak leaf earrings she wore during the wedding were from her parents.

        She might have a pair of Diana’s sapphire earrings, as Diana had multiple pairs of sapphire earrings. Let’s hope William didn’t take all of those along with taking the engagement ring from Harry.

      • Lauri says:

        Sorry about the confusion, I should have worded this differently but yes, I meant the earrings and bracelet that Kate was (supposedly) given by Charles but not worn until after the wedding.

      • Shotcaller says:

        Why do you think William took the ring from Harry? Everything I’ve ever read runs contrary to that. Is this new or vintage gossip?

      • PrincessK says:


      • notasugarhere says:

        The ring switch/snag has been discussed on multiple forums for almost 8 years now. After Diana’s death, William picked first and picked the watch, Harry picked second and chose the ring. Burrell told the tale in his book published years before W&K got engaged. Harry surprised on video when watching the press conference, not knowing William had snagged the ring. Only places I’ve read an alternate version are on Kate fan blogs.

      • Unoriginal Commenter says:

        @nota, holy crap–William proposed with Diana’s ring without getting Harry’s permission ahead of time? I had not read that. Wow, that is cold.

      • littlemissnaughty says:

        @nota: Wait, William did what ???

      • LAK says:

        What Nota said.

        Everyone working at the Palace during that time frame knew that William chose the watch and Harry chose the ring.

        At the time of the engagement, Harry was in a public place ie not behind palace walls and reacted surprised to the ring unveil on tv.

      • Shotcaller says:

        Okay I’ve been digging and I can’t turn up anything that sheds light on this. Every article I’m reading says Harry approved. William may have chosen the watch initially, which is documented, but why are you sure he and Harry didn’t agree that, later, William could have it? A look on Harry’s face or old forum gossip is interesting but I’d like something more credible. Are there any links?

      • notasugarhere says:

        Amazing how you’ve never heard any of these things that have been common knowledge and discussed for 8 years in royal forums.

      • Shotcaller says:

        No evidence then? Common knowledge doesn’t make something true. Eight of the young men years on gossip forums will have taught you that.

      • Masamf says:

        @Shotcaller, is there any evidence to anything that’s being said on these boards? I very much doubt it. I’d say 90% of what’s being said here is hearsay, even what you yrself say can’t be proven by evidence or proven documentation. I doubt anyone close to these royal family folks would go on record spilling their guts to whomever but that’s just me.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Harry was surprised by the news, as were other members of the royal family. Anne’s quote was interesting, about it being nothing to do with her but was nice. Charles gave a quote about them practicing long enough.

        Harry gave his surprised quote about how he thought William was never going to get married and how he was “looking forward to getting to know her”. Showing contrary to fan speculation, he had no close relationship with KM. He did, after all, condone the use of The Limpet as one of her nicknames. Most royals including Charles out doing regularly engagements – which hasn’t happened before on an engagement day – because none of them were warned ahead of time.

        Time for you to introduce yourself to google.

      • Shotcaller says:

        These are examples of why “you” believe Harry had no idea his brother was engaged. Both Harry’s and William’s various biographies conteadict you quite clearly. So to you I say more books less google.

        That is my point actually. Without evidence it is imprudent to then turn around and insist something must be true because “everyone knows it’s true.” It wouldn’t kill some of us to admit we’re simply forming opinions here.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Cannot erase the 8 years of it, shotcaller. William has done many rotten things through the years. Foisting his mothers ring of doom on his fiance, snatched from his brother, is one of many.

    • Bethany F says:

      Duplicate post, mods, plz delete!!

    • Bethany F says:

      @anna the Spencer tiara isn’t even up for debate, the speculation is a bit silly. Meghan is not a Spencer woman. Spencer women wear the tiara. This was covered during William and Kate’s wedding when people wondered if Kate would wear it.

      • oh-dear says:

        It isn’t silly if you did not follow the debate back then. It is okay that some people enter into knowledge later than others. The tone of these responses is a little surprising.

      • Shelly says:

        No, its common sense. Neither Harry or MM are Spencers.
        The same for W and K

  14. TeamAwesome says:

    Oh, I love the Strathmore Rose! So romantic for a wedding, but I bet Meghan would prefer something less fussy.

  15. Shotcaller says:

    What I want to see are William and Kate’s coronets! Harry will have one as well when the queen makes him Duke of Sussex (or whichever). Without that he would not be allowed to wear one at his father’s coronation. Peers are only allowed to wear coronets and technically, only at coronations so they are very rarely seen. Elizabeth was not a peer but heir apparent when her father was crowned so she wore one. Not sure at all why Margaret was also allowed to wear one. Have William and Kate had one commission? Does Harry have someone working on his and Meghan’s as we speak?

    Fun fact: ducal crowns are not allowed to have any jewels or gems, no arches, must encircle the entire head and has to have a set amount of strawberry leaves. Who knew?I hope someone can weigh in on this with additions, corrections etc. So exciting!

    • Tina says:

      Not to be too annoying, but HM was heir presumptive, not heir apparent, right up until the time she inherited the throne. The thinking was that a monarch can father a legitimate male heir at any point until his death (however unlikely). And the royals can wear coronets, even if they are not peers (as Elizabeth and Margaret did). Harry would be entitled to wear one at Charles’s coronation, even if he were not created duke of whatever, as son of the sovereign/heir apparent.

    • Shotcaller says:

      Heir presumptive, yes, thank you. I don’t doubt what you’re saying about all children of the heir being allowed to wear a coronet but I’m having a hard time finding documentation of this. Is this done as a courtesy or is this a rule that has been instituted?

      PS – Charles’ coronet is ghastly lol.

      • Tina says:

        @shotcaller, one of the delights of the British constitution is that it is unwritten. I say “delights” because wouldn’t you like to rewrite the second amendment to the US constitution, possibly the worst written clause in the history of the law? (For documentation of coronets, see Bagehot, or Wikipedia).

      • Shotcaller says:

        Great analogy! Going to check out your recs. Did you know that the Duke of Windsor literally made off with his POW coronet? It was repatriated after his death and promptly archived but how gauche!

  16. Tess says:

    I’m hoping it’ll be the Strathmore rose, but it was the Queen Mother’s tiara and for some reason I think QE is hesitant to loan it. Apologies to Kaiser but I’m pretty certain Kate has never worn that one. I’m ruling out the Spencer tiara just because I think it’s a long shot and Earl Spencer has a reputation of being a big fat pain about everything. Also Megan is not the Spencer, Harry is; I could see it being loaned out if Harry/William was the Spencer female getting married, but not to their wives. I think Megan will get to pick between two new/never seen or at least not seen in a long time. The Cartier halo scroll was one like this and Kate actually got to pick between that and another one. Maybe Megan will get to choose the one she didn’t? I just hope she doesn’t get a obviously janky broken-pieces-of-a-tiara-put-together like Sophie.

    • Whatever says:

      Lol Sophie’s tiara was terrible it looked like it came from a car boot sale.

    • notasugarhere says:

      HM picks the tiara. The wearer is not given a choice; that bit is pure fan fiction.

      • Lauri says:

        Not to doubt you Nota but I can’t see the Queen telling her future Granddaughter in law “this is the one you’re wearing” without taking into consideration the woman’s wedding dress, hair style and personal preference. I could however, see the Queen selecting 2-3 tiaras and letting the bride to be pick her favorite.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Has always been HM selecting the tiara if you do not have a family one to wear. If you are like Kate Middleton, and apparently keep the design of the gown secret from even HM, you may end up with a tiara that doesn’t suit the gown. Sarah Ferguson went off script by choosing to borrow a tiara from Garrard, circumventing whatever choice HM was going to make.

        Why on earth would people think Sophie would choose to have that stick-the-pieces-together tiara? It was HM who had that one assembled, likely because at that time Sophie wasn’t expected to take on full-time duties and wasn’t going to need tiaras. Times change, Sophie and Edward are drafted, and she ends up wearing 5 tiaras over 20 years because of the number of events she attends.

      • Bridget says:

        Sophie’s tiara was a gift. Some people will consult the recipient on design, and some won’t. It just depends on the person. And however not great Sophie’s came out, those are STILL pieces that date back to Queen Victoria. The Queen clearly wanted to give her a special piece.

      • notasugarhere says:

        The pieces may date back to Victoria, but I don’t think it was a gift as in personal property. It was a reflection of Sophie not expected to do many engagements plus many of the tiaras still being under the control (or loaned) to Queen Mum, Margaret, etc. at the time.

        E&S married in 1999, while the Queen Mum and Margaret didn’t pass until 2002. All the Greville jewels, anything worn by Queen Mum or loaned to Margaret – those were off the list of things that could be loaned to Sophie. After the flack of Fergie and the tiara purchase, they weren’t going to purchase a new one for Sophie. They had to make do.

        HM doesn’t give tiaras or jewels away. She does loans, not gifts. The awful necklace and earring set Edward designed were a gift.

    • LAK says:

      The Spencer tiara is not an option. It is only available to Spencer wives and daughters.

  17. WendyNerd says:

    If they make her a new tiara, I hope it’s s nice one and not like that ugly one that was made for Sophie.

    • minx says:

      Poor Sophie, that was so terrible.

    • PrincessK says:

      There is definitely a likelihood that Meghan could get a new tiara but an equal likelihood that the Queen may choose to give her one from the collection. Both options have their merits but if there are loads of unworn tiaras, bring some of them back I say.

  18. Bliss 51 says:

    Lady Sarah Chatto’s wedding tiara comprised of different brooches.

    Or something like Ruth Negga’s jeweled headband but in diamonds

    • jeanne says:

      i loved everything about sarah chatto’s wedding attire. it was so different and simple. no fuss. very her.

      i like the ruth negga idea. it’s similar to the bandeau tiara which would be just enough not swallow meghan’s frame. also, it’s kind of tudor-esque which could be fun.

  19. HeidiM says:

    Are the tiara’s not linked to whatever titles they will be given by the Queen?

  20. Vava says:

    I wish there was something like the Fife tiara for her to wear!

    • Tonya says:

      Vava, one of my favourite tiaras…I wonder if it can be arranged…


      • LAK says:

        The Fife tiara has never belonged to the royal family. It was a new bought / commissioned wedding gift to the princess marrying the duke of Fife. That means it was her tiara outright and would pass down to her descendants without the royal family having any claim to it.

        As we have seen with these tiaras, royal or otherwise, they come up for auction from time to time as the descendants eventually ran out of money, and tiara events are so rare that it makes more sense to sell.

        We can only hope that if the family doesn’t have the tiara then a museum has it. The worst is where they sell it and a private purchaser buys it and never puts it on display.

  21. Bridget says:

    My prediction: she’ll be gifted a tiara of her own, but one that is updated or re-purposed, like Sophie’s vs having a brand new one commissioned. I think she’ll be on the event circuit (again similar to Sophie) and as the wife of the spare she may not have the same access to the jewel vault over time.

    • Tata Mata says:

      Sopie’s wedding tiara was … well, judge yourself. Her later tiaras were quite nice, though. Just scroll down:


      • Bridget says:

        I’m not a huge fan of it, but I do appreciate that they tried to do something meaningful with Victoria’s brooches. But aside from aesthetic considerations, it’s still exactly what I said it was: a gift, commissioned for Sophie on her wedding day.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I don’t think it was a gift but rather Sophie’s first loaner. HM isn’t known for giving away any of the jewels permanently. Loan yes, give away completely, no.

      • Bridget says:

        I think that will eventually be officially given to Sophie, and that it was a lifetime loan at the time on the heels of 2 high profile divorces. But Edward and his family will represent a royal “offshoot” and typically they have their own “family” tiara.

      • notasugarhere says:

        That might make sense, but if the original pieces of Victoria’s circlet are government property, it cannot be gifted to Sophie.

    • LAK says:

      If she gets a tiara like Sophie’s wedding tiara, i will believe the fanfiction that HM hates her because that was an ugly tiara made from broken pieces of a Victoria circlet, and not a pretty one in it’s original form.

      • Bridget says:

        HM just doesn’t have very good taste. She hasn’t had a lot of stuff commissioned, but what she has is pretty ugly.

      • Tata Mata says:

        Is there any difference in how Queen E treats commoner brides and aristo brides? Or does she dislike them all? She didn’t really take to Fergie (com). She seems to belittle Princess Michael (aristo). She didn’t seem to have much affection for Diana (aristo). It took a while for Sophie of W. to get the Queen’s affection. She seems to like her daughter Anne and some of the royal children, though.

      • PrincessK says:

        Well I heard that HM the Queen adores Kate.

      • LAK says:

        Tata Mata: That perception of the Queen’s relationships with her DIL or in-laws in general is not correct.

        The Queen has never made a distinction in class between her DILs or in-laws in general. She tends to welcome them with open arms.

        If outward signs of gifts or signs are read as indications of her feelings then i would say that she loved / Sophie best. She (and the QM) were so pleased with Sophie that they personally introduced her to rest of the family via get-together at QM’s home. HM designed a wedding tiara instead of simply loaning out one from the vault. She visited Sophie in hospital when she nearly died in childbirth. They spend alot of time together.

        Despite appearances, Fergie was only sidelined. HM welcomed Fergie with open arms and has never broken off contact. Fergie attends Sandrigham, has tea at Windsor, and these days openly attends Balmoral and Ascot.

        Diana was always a tricky one. Though she was also welcomed with open arms, her personality, revealed after marriage, was unnerving to the entire family. And as compromise became increasingly unlikely, everyone retreated to their corners. The Queen never actively dislike Diana, but didn’t understand her. For Diana, being understood was everything and anyone who didn’t understand her was deemed to have rejected her and therefore an enemy to be thwarted. I think that contributed to her increasingly negative relationship with Philip and HM even as they tried to help her.

        The quote from HM regarding the grandness of Princess Michael is taken out of context. When an aide told HM about Maria Christine’s pedigree which is very grand, her reply was that the future PssM was ‘too grand for us’ because everyone knows the Windsor pedigree isn’t as grand as some families especially Maria Christine. It’s an example of HM’s humour and wasn’t meant as a slight. That comment has been reframed to imply behaviour and therefore a dislike. As far as we know, PssM and HM are fine.

        As for her own daughter, i think that is a given. They are both country women with alot in common like horses and dogs. Ditto Anne’s children. Further, Anne is a female Philip in manner so HM is more likely to like Anne because of that.

        Btw, there is a misconception about commoners in Britain. If a person holds a peerage title in their own right then they are not commoners. Everyone else is a commoner. This includes the royal family. Princess Anne, Harry etc are commoners because they do not have peerage title. William stopped being a commoner when he accepted the Cambridge title because that is a peerage title.

        Further, people do not realise that Fergie is an aristocrat because she has / had no title by right or courtesy until her marriage. Via her father, she is descended from Charles 2 just like Diana. The current duke of Gloucester is her 3rd cousin. She is related to the Spencers, the Gloucesters AND the royal family, by not many degrees of separation. Her mother’s side of the family is all Earls and Viscounts in various generations.

        If we are grading on class, then Fergie and Diana are both aristos whilst Sophie and Kate are middle class. And as far as can be known, HM seems to like her inlaws the same unless there are reasons not to. Just like us.

      • Bridget says:

        @Tata Mata: no. For one thing, that’s all of her children’s spouses.

        @princessk: that’s nice.

  22. Tata Mata says:

    Kate had that lowly tiara which looks basically just like a simply line of diamonds – it looked cheap and her hair styling / wedding veil didn’t much to improve that. Kate should have pinned the veil not directly behind her tiara but to some chignon more at the crown/back of her head. That way the tiara’s diamonds could have sparkled as a contrast in front of Kate’s brown hair.

    But Middleton Buttons-love doesn’t know such tricks. She only studied History of Art for a MRS degree. Art had nothing to do with it. She never bothered to understand colours because expensive diamonds are without colour anyway. “Slim” is all she knows about proportions and form. “Hair highlights and lowlights” is all she knows about lights and shadows and she certainly wouldn’t look for that in a painting or picture.
    And the same reason you apply to increase the size of a staple of books by putting another one on top – Kate uses reason for wearing high heels only: to be taller. “Tower over everybody else” is all she knows about composition. And “aesthetics” is a word to impress a future crown prince who needed some help writing his academic papers. Sadly she never encountered the words “meaning” or “interpretation” neither in her studies of History of Art nor in her royal life as girlfriend and wife of Prince W.

    See here:



    If Meghan gets that tiara then this tiara will be known as the commoner bride’s wedding tiara. Or worse: the wedding tiara for royally unsuitable commoner women. (Some people did consider Middleton unsuitable and some people consider Markle unsuitable.)

    If the Queen were to give a tiara to Kate that contained buttons … Kate would roll on the floor in happyness.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Ignoring most of that to point out that Queen Mum, Diana, Sarah, Sophie were technically all commoners. None of them wore the Cartier halo.

      Also referencing the first post on this thread. The Cartier Halo is on exhibit in Australia through July. It is not available for a royal wedding.

      • Buncihita says:

        Diana was not a commoner, she was Lady Diana Spencer.

      • LAK says:

        Diana didn’t hold a peerage title in her own right which means she was a commoner. She was the daughter of a peer. A commoner is anyone without a peerage title. That makes Princes Michael, George, James and Harry, Princesses Anne, Alexandra, Beatrice, Eugenie, Charlotte, Louise commoners because thry do not hold peerage titles. William became a peer when he accepted hid ducal title. Ditto Charles, Edward x2, Andrew, Richard.

      • Tata Mata says:

        Technically daugthers of Aristo fathers don’t inherit any titles. But that doesn’t make them commoners. Because they do officially get the title “Lady…”.

        Queen Mum wasn’t a commoner, she was British nobility:
        Lady Elisabeth Bowes-Lyon
        daugter of: Claude Bowes-Lyon, 14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne


        Claiming that harry or Princess Anne were commoners because they don’t hold peerage titles is ridiculous. They are part of the British Aristocracy and they do have aristo or even royal titles (prince). They might not be part of the peerage system but they are aristos and claiming they were commoners is deceptive.

      • LAK says:

        Tata: i don’t make the rules, but these are the rules.

        And as peers of the realm, they cease to be commoners. Everyone else is a commoner regardless of their exhalted status or courtesy title as daughters / sons of a peer. And those titles given to the daughters are courtesy titles. It doesn’t make the daughters peers.

        Further, in your example and comments, you are conflating the class system with what it means to be a commoner. Commoner applies to everyone because it is about the peerage system regardless of their class. Class is about caste. Therefore you can’t class aristo caste the same as middle class caste as working caste. But you can have a working class / middle class peer who as a result isn’t a commoner and an aristocratic commoner without a peerage title.

        To be clear, the peerage itself has divisions of rank ie duke, Marquess, Earl, Viscount, Baron, knight in that order. Obviously some ranks are better than others, but as a group none of them are commoners.

        Everyone else who doesn’t hold a peer title is a commoner.

        The royal family are an exhalted status of commoners, but commoner they are. The style ‘prince’ isn’t recognised in the peerage. It simply marks them out as children / grandchildren of the monarch. Nothing more. It’s frequently mistakenly believed to mean more, but it does not.

      • Tina says:

        Technically, LAK is right. Anyone who is not a peer is a commoner. But colloquially it is a little bit crazy that the Duchess of Devonshire is a commoner, and Karren Brady of the Apprentice is not.

    • Whatever says:

      If Kate wanted to wear her hair half up / half down a bigger tiara would have been better like the Strathmore Rose tiara.

      Here’s a mock up of Kate with that tiara…


    • Bridget says:

      Why would you call the Cartier Halo “lowly”?

      • LAK says:

        It’s your standard starter tiara given to a woman at the first occasion that requires a tiara. Each of the other royals that wore it did so briefly and quickly ditched it.

        Further, given the surviving examples of halo tiaras, this one is practically a hairband ie it doesn’t fully commit to the style eg the Westminster halo tiara is a very good example of the style. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/20/9e/75/209e756e0935f20dbed47f39d83bd9fc.jpg

      • Bridget says:

        I like it a lot, actually. Compared to other ‘starter’ tiaras, I think it’s really lovely. I love the Halo Scroll. I mean, for comparison, look at Crown Princess Mary’s wedding tiara, or Maxima’s (I hate those stars). Or M-M or Norway. We don’t see a ton of “big gun” bridal tiaras for women marrying in to royal families. It’s not like Kate was ever going to get the Boucheron Honeycomb or the Girls Of Great Britain (for a lot of reasons, of course).

    • minx says:

      Hoo boy, could you cram any more high handedness into that post? And too bad if “some people” consider “Markle” unsuitable, the wedding is on.

  23. Tough Cookie says:

    I’m hoping whichever tiara is chosen it will be one that has some connection to the Queen Mother, as Meghan has the same birthday (August 4th.)
    I love that Meghan was born on the Queen Mother’s 81st birthday!!

    • PrincessK says:

      That may well be something that could swing it for the Strathmore Rose, HM the Queen may well like to see this tiara worn once again.

    • notasugarhere says:

      That would also hold for the Teck Crescent and Teck Circle, both of which were worn by Queen Mum.

    • Shotcaller says:

      The queen mother was a racist and a bigot. I think if Meghan knew that fact she would be unhappy with wearing that on her wedding day.

      • PrincessK says:

        Most white people born in the 19th century or around the first two decades of the 20th century could be described as ‘racists’ or ‘bigots’. A lot of it is to do with the ‘time’, the ‘place’ and the ‘milieu’.

        After all the actual institution of royalty which Meghan is marrying into would one upon a time barred her on the grounds of her being a divorcee and having an African American mother but Meghan is not rejecting the institution but is embracing and helping change it. On that basis I do not think that Meghan would reject being associated with a little women who was just acting in accordance with the conventions of her time.

        My late white mother used to laugh at jokes which would now be deemed as racist but she was the kindest person who I absolutely love to bits.

      • Shotcaller says:

        This is the excuse given for Prince Philip. It doesn’t hold up because there were just as many people who were champions for equality – compassionate, intelligent people who treated others with humanity and in many cases, advocated publicly and persistently for the rights of people of color. William Wilberforce was a staunch British abolitionist and he died a quarter of a century before the queen mother was born. I can give examples of white people in my own family going back for generations who would have never even considered tolerating racism and were against the very idea of it. The queen mother was a racist because she chose to be and was two in delicate to at least keep it private.

      • PrincessK says:

        @Shotcaller…..I am sorry but I must totally disagree with you. People during those times who believed in true equality of the races were a very small minority. Many well meaning abolitionists would be described as racists by today’s standards.

        If there were just as many people around at that time who held the attributes you describe history would have been very different. I could give you dozens of examples, the treatment of people in the colonies, employment opportunities, the stories of people who attempted to have mixed relationships, the experiences of people who did have mixed marriages.

        The reality is that the late 20th century was the time when racial issues were being addressed and we are still grappling with them now, and a prime example is the present obsession with Meghan Markle’s race.

      • Tina says:

        I’m with Princess K. I am old enough to remember racial slurs being relatively common in everyday speech (in the US, UK and Canada) and that was in the 1970s and 1980s. Going back further, pretty much every Allied serviceman in WWII used the ‘J’ word. It is arguable that Winston Churchill committed genocide in India. Racism was widespread and extremely common in the West until the 1980s (and today, of course, but it was much more open back then).

      • Shotcaller says:

        You guts can’t seriously be arguing, basically, that peeopke in the early/mid 20th century were racist because they couldn’t help it or because everyone else was doing it. There is no excuse for racists to hide under. Pointing out that racists have always existed is a head scratcher for me. I’m sure they always will exist but that has nothing to do with individual choices. On a tour of the National Portrait Gallery the queen mother leaned over and said to the director “watch out for the blackamores”. If you think the era in which someone was born gives them a right to be a condescending racist or bigot all I can say is I know better.

      • Masamf says:

        @Shotcaller, I don’t think people are disputing the fact that there were people that were racists back then, yes there were as it is today, there are still racists. But I’m thinking that people are just not liking everybody that made some comment that we would consider “racist” today to automatically be branded a racist. I honestly I’m having a problem with such suggestions like “I think if Meghan knew that fact [QM made a racist comment] she would be unhappy with wearing that [QM tiara] on her wedding day”! Why would Meghan start this kind of friction with her new family? it doesn’t make any sense for one to suggest Meghan start off on this footing! You have to be open to the consideration that what others said can be true too, that comments we consider racists today were not necessarily considered racist back in the day!! No winners or losers in this, you all are correct.

      • Nic919 says:

        I agree with shotcaller’s point that people of previous generations certainly knew when they were being racist. My grandparents were born during the Depression where segregation was legal in the American South but they were Canadian and knew it was a racist practice. They knew using the n word was wrong and ignorant. Therefore people saying racist things can’t be excused for it because it was “back then”. It was simply that it was more acceptable to be openly racist and no one called them on it.

      • PrincessK says:

        @Shotcaller….nobody is condoning racist behaviour or comments but we must take into consideration the conventions of the day. Very often wrong things are said without malice or vengeance even though they do perpetuate the wrong type of thinking.
        A few years ago I was having a chat with an 80 year old about the spread of Chinese economic power, and this person laughed and said: “Yes my mother warned us about the ‘yellow peril”. But I was not going to turn around and say, oh your mother was a racist. Also this person’s mother must have been born around the same time as the QM. That was how things were then.

      • Masamf says:

        Nic919, I think we all agree that using the “N” word is racists, whichever generation one is from. But there are words that are coined racist today that weren’t considered so back then. And because such weren’t considered prejudice then, people used them (or use them today) without knowing that they were/are offensive, therefore branding anyone that’s ever said anything offensive a racist is not right. An example is calling a little person a midget. Not everybody knows that it is offensive and therefore claiming that whoever that’s ever called a little person a midget is prejudiced is a stretch.

  24. Laura says:

    If the Strathmore Rose or the Teck Crescent are still around and in good shape, those are my two guesses. I would prefer to see the Teck Crescent make its reappearance after many years, I think it would suit Meghan.

  25. Beluga says:

    I’m hoping for the Teck Circle. It’s usually worn as a necklace, but can also be a tiara and would have a bit of an art nouveau look that would suit Meghan down to the ground.



    • Cynical Ann says:

      I’m with you-that is super cool. I can’t wait until the 19th. My 9 year old son said he’s getting up early to watch it with his big sister and myself.

    • JustBitchy says:

      Beluga. I am 100% behind you

    • Alexandria says:

      I think Teck circle might edge out the crescent, though I prefer the crescent. I suspect the crescent is kept out of sight because the royals do not want to be accused of sporting a Muslim symbol in these times. Meghan already has a lot of unwarranted criticism going against her and I don’t wish yet another one against her. I would like to see the Teck circle or the Cartier bracelet bandeau on Meghan. I can’t wait!

  26. L84Tea says:

    Interesting to see all these theories. My first thought was that Kate didn’t go over the top with her wedding tiara and wore a very small, simple one, so what would happen if Meghan wore a large one? I think people would flip out.

    • notasugarhere says:

      It would mean HM chose to loan her a larger one, just as HM selected the Cartier for KM. That wouldn’t be unusual. Eventually Kate will have access to the big guns of tiaras, after Charles and Camilla have both passed. Starting Meghan out with a substantial loaner might indicate that she’s using that one loaner tiara for most of her events.

  27. Lady D says:

    I know it will never be in the running, but the Swedish cut steel tiara is stunningly beautiful.

  28. Lorelei says:

    Meghan would look drop-dead-gorgeous in a tiara from Party City!

  29. Lexa says:

    I love tiara talk! I’m so curious to see what the Queen chooses for Meghan. It wouldn’t surprise me if she commissions something new (using old pieces) that can be passed down through Harry and Meghan’s family as their descendants move further from the throne with each generation.

    It would truly surprise me if we see Meghan in the Queen Mary’s Lover’s Knot (the one most people think of as the Cambridge Lover’s Knot–the Cambridge Lover’s is a different tiara and was sold at auction a while back) as I think it’s likely one that’s been set aside primarily for Kate’s exclusive use for the time being. I think the next time we’ll see the Cartier Halo tiara will be on Princess Charlotte when she’s older.

    Personally, I would love to see Meghan in the Teck Circle. It has such a clean, classic design and I think would suit her taste and style. I would also die to see the Strathmore Rose tiara come back. It looks like it’s in okay shape based on this photo from 2002, but that was 16 years ago and it could still be too fragile to actually wear: https://i.pinimg.com/736x/40/35/74/40357419f028b25495b7aadb1dc1d11e.jpgp

  30. jegga says:

    I don’t even think she will be offered a tiara, maybe a headband piece like what Camilla wore which would suit her better. Kate herself wore a very small tiara, so MM wearing a larger one will look bad. Both her and Harry are already getting criticized for spending 30M in pounds of tax money on on their wedding, when he is 6th in line and she is a divorcee. They should have just married in a registry office and then have a small private reception.
    @ Notasuger. Why are you spreading lies about William ‘stealing’ Diana ring from Harry? Please stop. It is well known Prince William asked his brother for permission and Harry happily agreed. He himself is very good friends with Kate and has compare her like a sister to him. Please just stop. The ring now belongs to Kate and will go to her children, not Meghan. End of story.
    @ Shotcaller. There are no links because its not true, notasuager is spreading a nasty lie and rumor. Some of the comments about Katherine on these boards are disgusting.

    • PrincessK says:

      @jegga….Why on earth should HRH Prince Henry of Wales, son of Diana, Princess of Wales and HRH Prince Charles, heir to the British throne marry in a bl**dy registry office and have a low key small private reception away from the attention of the public who absolutely adore popular Harry, the most eligible bachelor in the world.

      Anybody who suggests this must be off their rocking chair. Have you not noticed the media frenzy over this wedding worldwide? In terms of public interest and the numbers who will view this wedding on the day I think it will rival W & Ks wedding, even though that took place in London.

      And please don’t tell me that Charles got married to Camilla in a registry office, no comparison whatsoever. Millions of pounds of revenue is already pouring into the UK as a result of the wonderful spectacle which WILL happen on May 19th much to the consternation of some ridiculous trolls.

      • Lina says:

        Haha are you Meghan Princess K?

      • Tina says:

        I want rid of the whole bloody lot of them, they’re a massive waste of money. But I’ll be damned if the first person of colour to marry into the British royal family is treated as lesser in any way. Andrew was a second son of the monarch, and he married in grand style in Westminster Abbey. Margaret was a second daughter of the monarch and she did the same. Windsor is entirely appropriate.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Jegga, the members of the BRF were publicly surprised by the engagement, in addition to HM not being told until after the press were told. That includes Harry.

    • Shotcaller says:

      Notasugarhere makes good points but yes, 1/3 of her assertions are utter rot. Harry gave William the ring. I think he likes knowing that big blue will make it to the throne. According to the official KP news release the queen and Prince Charles knew about and consented to William’s request. According to Harry’s biographer William asked the queen at Balmoral that summer. He proposed to Kate in the fall. The palace didn’t know about the actual press announcement until two days before. But don’t let facts stand in the way.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Cannot erase 8 years of it in a few posts, shotcaller, nor let the facts stand in the way of your attempts to re-write history as you’ve done on several threads now. Especially the fictions regarding Kate Middleton’s laser focus on William and their cheating escapades. That’s a whole lot of Kate Middleton fan fiction re-writing there, much as the whitewashing was done in the press post-engagement.

        Harry did not gift the ring to William, but was surprised by the news of both the engagement and the use of the ring. Rightly so, as it was his. It should have been kept in a vault and left for generations, instead of being used by William the cheap.

        The royals were out on pre-arranged engagements because they were not warned head. Press conference called two hours before HM was told. That does not happen usually, which is one of the many things that point to it being a surprise and not business as usual.

  31. CooCooCatchoo says:

    http://orderofsplendor.blogspot.com/2011/07/tiara-thursday-diamond-foam-tiara-and.html?m=1 This is the tiara that I love the most: the Diamond Foam tiara, commissioned for Prince Albert of Monaco’s wife. It’s understated and can be worn a number of ways.

    • notasugarhere says:

      I like that Albert cared enough to commission two tiaras specific to her love of water.

      • Bridget says:

        Except Charlene isn’t a big jewelry person, and he presented her with a big honking set with the Ocean parure.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Charlene does wear big jewels, particularly earrings, often from Graff. Some may be loaners but many are seen repeatedly so are likely personal property. Albert is personally a billionaire after all. Letizia also wears a king’s ransom in jewels in earring format.

    • Vava says:

      Oh, I love that one!!

  32. Sharma says:

    A low key wedding would have been appropriate rather than all the pomp and ceremony the BRF and tax payers are affording to this couple. The comment has to do with not only a divorcee, but Harry and Meghan are way down the succession. All the pomp, ceremony and glory should be afforded to Charles and William, who already had it, and George.
    Or they should have at least paid for it themselves 100% if they wanted this type of wedding. Very shameful of this couple who declared themselves to be humanitarians waste tax payers money.

    • PrincessK says:

      @Sharma…..Harry and Meghan are not ‘way down the succession’, they are senior royals and will be a central part of the RF for many years to come , and it is likely that their children will also have prominent roles to play.

      Kate’s new baby is being born to help support George and Charlotte carry out royal duties, and even three of them may not be able to do it all alone and their first cousins may very likely lend a helping hand.

      Humanitarianism has nothing to do with this, I really suggest that you should go and bark up another tree.

      • Veronica says:

        Any children of Harry’s are going to be the new Eugenie and Beatrice. By the time they are older, the public will probably really be sick of supporting them all, so they will probably be out of work, just like the girls are. People like Harry so they think that his kids will be given privileges that the others not in the direct line haven’t been given, but they won’t. People loved Andrew and Fergie when they got married and we know how that worked out.
        And it does seem hypocritical to be spending all of this money on the 6th in line’s wedding when it is Meghan’s second wedding. 30 Million is a HUGE amount of money for the taxpayers to shell out for this wedding. Seems kind of narcissistic to me, not humanitarian-minded at all.
        We’ll see how humanitarian-minded they are after the wedding, I’m sure.

      • PrincessK says:

        @Veronica…..well your disapproving and jaundiced crystal bowl is quite different from mine. There are many members of the royal family and how interesting that you have chosen to use Andrew’s family, and the York sisters, who I happen to feel are not that terrible, as a comparison to Harry and Meghan’s potential offspring.
        However, unfavourable comments about the future Duke and Duchess of Clarence are to be expected from certain quarters where the sun never shines.

      • Lina says:

        @ Princess K.

        PH and MM kids won’t even get the title of Princess or Princess, they will be the children of very minor Royals. Harry himself is no longer in the direct line of succession. What are you talking about Megs? Harry and his future kids have no role to play in the Monarach. It will be Will and Kate’s kids who will get everything.
        I also think your tone is really rude. If you don’t think wasting 30 Million pounds of tax payers money on the wedding of a lower ranked Royal and his divorced bride isn’t bad, then you must be a delusional sycophant of theirs.

      • Gretaf says:

        Harry’s future kids will never be given the same privileges or opportunities as William’s kids, who are children of the heir and have a real chance at being Queen or King in line to the throne. They won’t even be given official titles of Princess or Prince due to a Royal protocol which was made by the Queen herself back in 2013. A Protocol which she states that ” Only the eldest child of the sovereign is allowed to give his or her kids unlimited Royal titles to their offspring”. Which is none other then Prince William and his kids.
        Harry himself is 6th in line to the throne, he is now a minor Royal along with MM.

      • Sam says:

        @Lina 30 million pound is the estimate given by a company that still thinks Harry and Meghan are having banana cake as their wedding cake.Maybe we should all wait until after the wedding to know the TRUE cost of it
        Harry and Meghan kids are going to be Lord and lady until Charles gets on that throne where they would get bumped to Prince and Princess unless Harry and Meghan( like Edward and Sophie/Annne )refuses

      • PrincessK says:

        @Sam….thank you for setting the record straight.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Lina, God’s House isn’t prejudiced against divorced persons marrying in full religious service. It has been allowed in CoE since 2002.

      • LAK says:

        Gretaf: You misinterpreted what HM did in 2013. By the letters patent 1917, only the children / grandchildren of the monarch as well as the eldest son of the POW are automatically princes/s.

        In that context, only George is automatically prince. Charlotte and other Cambridge kids would be Lord / Lady. In effect having one kid automatically and visibly of higher status than their siblings.

        HM added an amendment in 2013 to the letters patent 1917 that said ALL the kids of the eldest son of POW were to be given the same style of Princes/s.

        Harry being the SECOND son of the POW doesn’t have same right per the 1917 letters. His kids will be Lord / Lady because they are not children or grandchildren of the monarch – see the children of the Kents / Gloucesters who have similar issue. Only the monarch can change that.

        This will change when Charles becomes King. Harry and his kids will become children / grandchildren of the monarch which means they will be upgraded to princes/s.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Harry and Meghan will be one third of the working royal family for the next 30 years. They are not minor royals.

        W&K’s kids only ended up with the prince and princess titles (as LAK writes) because HM changed the Letters Patent. Otherwise they would have been Lord and Lady. She may choose to do the same for H+M or not, or they might choose to refuse the higher titles like Edward and Sophie did.

        PrincessK has been here for a long time, Lina, before Meghan came on the scenes. She may be a supporter of Meghan and Harry, but she isn’t Meghan herself. That accusation is a popular way for tumblr folks to try to derail the years-long royal discussions we’ve been having on here.

      • LAK says:

        Tiny correction: eldest son of the eldest son of the POW was automatically princes/s. 2013 amended the rule to ALL children 9f the eldest son of the POW.

      • Nic919 says:

        Harry and Meghan are having a wedding along the lines of Edward and Sophie and by the time Edward was getting married, William and Harry were born so he was already pushed down the line of succession and yet no one had fits about his wedding. Really it was Andrew who got the Westminster Abbey wedding when as the second son, he was never going to inherit himself, as William was born at that point too. As for the divorce issue… that has been resolved already by the Archbishop of Canterbury no less. There isn’t a higher authority in the Church of England except the Queen so saying they can’t get married in a church is simply repeating false nonsense.
        Is there an element of PR with this wedding? Of course. That’s how the BRF maintains cultural power and considering how popular Harry currently is, and the ground breaking nature of his bride, the BRF would be fools to force them to have a small civil ceremony.

      • Veronica says:

        Princess K,
        I’m not being jaundiced and the sun does shine in my life!! I don’t know how old you are, but I am the age Diana would have been had she lived. I remember Andrew and Fergie’s wedding, their engagement, all of the positive press they got, how the media loved her and called her “a breath of fresh air,” how everyone adored them! No one knew Andrew was a dirtbag back then, and Fergie’s worst crimes were bad judgment, and the media turned on her viciously, and have mocked their lovely and seemingly kind daughters for decades.

        Meghan is American, divorced, an actress, and her media coverage is mixed and full of snark at best. With every misstep, the press will jump on her. I am being realistic when I say it will not be a long honeymoon with the press, considering they aren’t that positive about her already. I am also of the belief that their kids will be so far down the line of succession, they will never be working royals, thus, the public won’t and shouldn’t support them. That’s all. Not being cruel here pointing out some facts, even though they are not very pleasant to Meghan fans. None of this is a judgment of her.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Coverage in DM and spinning trolls on tumblr does not “media coverage” make.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Since 2002 divorced persons are allowed to remarry in the Church of England with a full religious service. God’s House isn’t prejudiced against them, so it is rich that you are. p.s. Stop believing the wild estimates from the DM.

      A wedding at Windsor is automatically smaller and less expensive to secure than a wedding in London. Harry is soon to be 6th in line. Edward was what, 5th, when he and Sophie married in a similar ceremony at Windsor with a carriage procession. At that time, Edward and Sophie were not expected to be working royals while Harry and Meghan will be.

      Whether or not you like them, these two are going to be one third of the working royal family for the next 30 years. Crowds are going to show up to celebrate and support them, even if you don’t want them to. Police forces are required to deal with that.

      6000 people showed up for Zara’s private wedding in Scotland, and she’s much further down the line than Harry and not a working royal. Were Zara and Mike supposed to deny themselves the church wedding they both wanted because the public wanted to celebrate with them? Oh let me guess. You have no problem with Zara and Mike’s wedding, only with Harry and Meghan’s.

      • Tonya says:

        Nota, only thing I will add is Prince Edward was 7th in line at the time of his marriage…

      • notasugarhere says:

        Was he? I cannot remember. I just remember it was before the succession was changed.

      • Tonya says:

        In 1999, when Edward married, there was Charles (1), William (2), Harry (3), Andrew (4), Beatrice (5), Eugenie (6)…then Edward (7th). His wedding was televised etc…

      • Tan says:

        Wasn’t that like 20 years back? What was acceptable and fine may not be in today’s economic and cultural situation.
        I don’t think using events from 20,30 even 10 years back to justify something in todayr context is working.

        Things changed a lot in between.

    • PrincessK says:

      @ nota….Thank you.

      This is not the first time people have been calling me Meghan, it usually happens on DM. The problem is that some people do not want to hear the truth and prefer to remain in denial. Very sad.

    • Olive says:

      @ Lak
      You are entirely wrong. Prince Harry is going to be 6th in line to the throne, which means he is pretty much irrelevant now. He has no role to play in the Monarch and neither will any future kids he has. He may not even get a Dukedom, maybe an Earldom would be better since they most likely are going to save them for George Charlotte, and Baby 3 when they are of age.Prince Charles himself plans to limit the line of succession and who lives off the Duchy of Cornwall when he becomes King, Harry’s future kids will not receive upgrades since the Patent states only certain amount of children are entitled to the styling of Princess or Princess and its usually children of the next in line to the Throne.
      Will and Kate have a Patent stating their kids will receive these titled no matter how many kids they have. They are already on their 3rd child. Harry and Meghan are not important members of the Royal family. They are pretty much like Andrew and Fergie right now. No matter how much you want them to be, they are not.
      He is not going to become King at all, and Meghan will never be a Queen consort either.
      I highly doubt the Queen will make the future kids of Harry Princess or Prince. He is not entitled to it.

      • Tonya says:

        Olive, maybe Harry will not be needed in the future. However, for the foreseeable future (next 14- 20 years) he is.
        The kids of William are what…4 and 2 & newborn…how early do you want them to fulfill royal duties???
        I’m sure that his inheritance from his mother, great grandmother, grandfather, grandmother (Queen Elizabeth II), & father will eliminate any fear that Meghan & him will be in “the poor house”… I think that Harry got the better deal…

      • Tina says:

        @Olive, Harry will get a dukedom. Allegedly the Queen has promised him Sussex. And Charlotte is a girl, she won’t be given a dukedom. By the time George is of an age to get married, it is likely that he will be Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall so won’t need another dukedom. For baby 3, if it is a boy, York (and possibly Edinburgh, depending on whether it is given to Edward or not) will likely be free.

      • notasugarhere says:

        No matter how much you don’t want them to be, Harry and Meghan will be prominent working members of the royal family for the next 30 years. As for titles, HM can choose to do whatever she wants with her Letters Patent, as can Charles once he is king.

        As pointed out by others, Harry will likely receive a dukedom upon marriage, that’s how HM does it. Edward only received an Earldom because he requested it, with the understanding that he will be named Duke of Edinburgh once Prince Phillip and HM have passed. That is contingent on Charles following through on that promise. Originally it was speculated that Edward would be named Duke of Cambridge.

        Do you honestly expect the children of lazy W&K to start working as royals before they are 35? William and his wife didn’t, they’re still not working. Harry and Meghan are going to be 1/3 of the working royal family for the next 30 years. Harry will remain a Counsellor of State, possibly joined by Beatrice and Eugenie depending upon when Andrew passes.

        Most of the elders will retire soon as Philip has (Duke of Kent, Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, Princess Alexandra). Andrew cannot be gotten rid of, because he’s a Counsellor of State. Edward and Sophie will keep helping to fill the gap of the others retiring. But the bulk of royal “work” will fall to the six – Charles, Camilla, W&K, H+M.

        If Harry and Meghan have kids? I doubt they will be working royals. Members of the private royal family, yes, but no working royal role. Given how destructive William’s attitude is towards the monarchy? Support will continue to erode. If there is a throne left for W&K’s eldest son? He might be the only one left on the dole, while all of their other children go out to earn a living.

      • LAK says:

        Olive: i stated very clearly that as a second son of the POW, Harry’s kids have no right to princes/s style.

        Only HM as monarch can change that if the kids are born in her lifetime. Like she did for ALL of William’s kids rather than limit it to George per the original wording of the letters patent.

        When Charles becomes King, regardless of the public’s feeling about it, Harry and his kids become the child and grandchildren of the monarch. The letters patent 1917 state very clearly that every child and grandchild of the monarch is automatically a princes/s. There is no limit in numbers. If Charles had 20kids, they would all be princes/s. Ditto William can have 20kids and they would all be princes/s.

        Btw, that includes Edward’s kids even though they currently use Lord / Lady. Legally they can claim their princes/s style because they already have it.

        If Charles never becomes King, then Harry’s kids will remain Lord / Lady. Harry would be in the same position as Prince Edward, Duke of Gloucester, Prince Michael of Kent and Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester. Their fathers never became King, but as grandchildren of George 5, they are princes/s. Their own children are Lord / Lady because they are outside the scope of the letters patent 1917.

        And using the example of Prince Michael, it matters not a jot whether Harry receives a peerage title. Prince Michael’s kids are Lord /Lady even though he doesn’t have a peerage title. Harry’s kids will be the same whether he receives a peerage title or not.

        As a royal prince, Harry’s peerage title is expected to be duke. Edward asked for an Earldom which was granted with a caveat that he will receive the dukedom of Edinburgh after Philip’s death. A delay rather than an outright refusal to grant him one.

        Tina: on a lighter note, i’m crossing fingers and toes that he receives Clarence.

      • Tina says:

        @LAK, I’m team Sussex, purely because Clarence would be too many Cs. They already call Kate the Duchess of Cornwall half the time. :)

  33. CooCooCatchoo says:

    It seems as though Harry gave a lot of thought to Meghan’s engagement ring. It wouldn’t surprise me to find out that the main stone was ethically mined. They are a socially-conscious couple, and I’ve wondered if knowing that the majority of the family’s jewelry was created from stones obtained via colonialism. The term “blood diamond” wasn’t popularized until about 25 years ago, but it’s important issue with many young people. I hope Meghan gets a brand-new, ethically-sourced tiara. It would be delightful to see them create a new tradition.

  34. Peg says:

    Elton John is moaning that he did not receive an invitation to the wedding yet, funny because he cancelled concerts ove the weekend of the wedding, you what they say about, ASS U ME.
    Her half-brother’s invitation did not make its way to Oregon yet.
    Yvonne should be on TV next week, whining about her lost invitation, I think a magazine/newspaper is flying her over to get her views on the wedding.
    Apparently, her half-siblings did not invite young Meghan to their first weddings, so it was no surprise she did not invite them to Jamaica .

    • Masamf says:

      There’s no way, whatsoever, Elton John will NOT get an invitation. Elton and his husband were approached by the media wanting to know if they received their invitation. Their answer was not yet. That is not to mean they will not get one at all. Also, I’m doubtful that Elton or hubby will tell anything regarding their invite, saying anything at this point is opening themselves up to further media intrusion which any celebrity will not want at this point the game. What I’m suspecting is people that get invites will NOT disclose this and we will just see them on the wedding day to know that they made the cut. Elton John is closer to Harry than he is to William yet he was invited to William’s wedding. there’s no way Harry will not invite Elton John, no way! Elton John and his husband WILL be invited guests at Harry and Meghan’s wedding, mark my words.

  35. Mrs.Krabapple says:

    I think the Meander tiara would suit Megan. But I think it’s in Anne’s hands now, so it’s probably not available.

    • Bridget says:

      That is very much Anne’s. There’s no chance of Megan wearing it.

      Though Zara wore it for her wedding.

      • LAK says:

        That tiara is the family tiara therefore not controversial that Zara wore it. Ditto Autumn borrowing Anne’s other tiara.

      • notasugarhere says:

        LAK, oh for the days when businesses openly gifted royals with tiaras just because. Come christen our new ship, here’s a festoon tiara.

      • Bridget says:

        I didn’t think that needed to be clarified since Zara is Anne’s daughter. Was just pointing out a recent high profile wedding.

  36. Elise says:

    Why did they choose a date when there is a major sports event?
    And Meghan will most likely wear a tiara from the Queens collection, like what Kate did.
    She isn’t going to wear the Spencer Tiara since it resides with the Spencer family and Earl Spencer has been vocal about the Royals mistreatment of his sister. He will only allow his daughters to wear that tiara when it comes time for them to marry.

    • Tina says:

      It had to be in May or June, and not when there were any of the following: major cricket match, Chelsea flower show, trooping the colour, etc.

    • LAK says:

      Regardless of how Earl Spencer personally feels about the royals, the Spencer tiara is not an option because only daughters and wives can wear it. Harry is a Mountbatten -Windsor. Meghan is marrying a Mounbatten – Windsor and has the option of borrowing the family’s tiaras not the tiara belonging to another family.

      • Masamf says:

        Lak, I commend your diligence on making people understand this. I just don’t get why people continue with this Spencer tiara thing. The BRF have tons of tiaras for HM to choose from, if she wants to loan Meghan one. Whatever HM chooses should be good enough for Meghan fans.

      • Bridget says:

        It’s tradition, not law. It’s the family’s choice to continually follow that tradition, therefore Charles Spencer’s choice. The way you’re saying it sounds like the tiara is bound by law to the Spencer’s. If they chose to sell it, it would certainly be worn by other than the Spencer women.

      • Olive says:

        You are wrong again LAK. The tiara resides with the Spencer family, why would he allow Meghan Markle, the wife of the 6th in line , to wear it before his own daughters? I don’t get it. She is not entitled to wear it at all since she is not a Spencer.
        She at best will be offered something from the Queens collection.

      • LAK says:

        Bridget: if you sell something, how can you claim ownership after the sale?

        We are not discussing tiaras that are on the open market, but personal family property and how it’s used within aristo families. This rule applies to all the families not just the Spencers.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Olive you are misunderstanding what LAK has written several times on this thread. She is stating that the Spencer *cannot* be used by Harry’s future wife.

        “At best”? As if being loaned a tiara from Queen Elizabeth is a lesser choice to borrowing the family tiara of the odious Earl Spencer, who abandoned his own sister and profited for years off her death. SMH

      • LAK says:

        Olive: You are repeating what i have said on this thread several times. Perhaps you don’t comprehend my writing style hence you say i am wrong and then proceed to rewrite my comments in the way YOU understand them.

        Nota: *at best*!!! Lol. We should all have the option of *at best* from the Mountbatten-Windsor vault of jewels. A collection regularly deemed (even if by PR) to be the finest in the world.

  37. tearose11 says:

    It will def. be a loaner from QEII, not a new purchase.

    As for Meghan, why do people keep calling her “tiny”? She is 5′ 6″, which is pretty average and doesn’t look frail or anything.

    I’m just curious. Maybe because I’m 5′ 2″, I don’t consider 5’6″ to be “tiny” LOL

    • notasugarhere says:

      A reference to her frame/bone structure I’d guess. You can be small, medium, or large boned according to medical charts. Her bone structure is small like Queen Letizia’s of Spain.

    • Veronica says:

      She is nowhere near 5ft6in. In the Christmas walk pics, you can see she barely comes up to Kate’s nose!!
      So if Meghan is 5ft6in, then Kate is about 6 feet tall!! I think she is listed as 5ft7in, which would make Meghan 5ft3in or 5ft4in. I believe actresses, like basketball players, always have exaggerated stats.

      • Scram says:

        So many exclamation points for no reason. I agree that she’s probably around 5’4 which, last I heard, was average height for a woman in the US.

        I don’t know who is responsible for her online stats, but it would be strange for actresses to exaggerate them. There’s no need for it. For actors being tall can be seen as more manly, but for actresses…

      • Masamf says:

        Veronica, attempting to guess one’s height from pictures is the most inaccurate way I can think of. To begin with, Kate and Meghan are in heels, the height of the heels in a given picture is not really known, therefore claiming that Kate is much taller than whomever because “in the pictures she appears to tower over them” is..obviously not the best way. Secondly, the surface upon which one is standing can contribute to their height, especially if you are looking at pictures. Im not really sure what Meghan’s or Kate’s height it, but IMVHO, one being taller than the other is a pointless argument to make. Likewise, who is skinnier than the other is also a pointless argument to make, people need to quit taking subtle digs at and shaming others in regards to their bodies. None of these women has any control of how they were created, whether Meghan is 5′ while Kate is 7′ is not reason to be dissing Meghan. Like, you are trying to make it seem like being of short stature makes Meghan of less superiority to Kate Middleton!! That is ridiculous!!

  38. Em says:

    A little inside information…….Charles Spencer has offered the Spencer Tiara to her for the wedding, Harry thought it was a good idea until others pointed out to him that Charles had been touting the tiara for sale to the big two auction houses , the conclusion was that he was probably trying to up the sale price by having Meg wear it. It is believed the offer was declined.

    My guess is that she will get her own tiara, in much the same way a rather lovely tiara was bought for Fergie, which seemed very generous at the time but the ulterior motive was that the Queen never found it necessary to loan her any of the Royal Bling afterward.

  39. Gretaf says:

    How many hospitals, schools, disabled, homeless people could they help with the amount of money being spent on this wedding? What a farce, the 6th in line to the throne and his older, 2 times divorced wife getting a 30M tax paid wedding! I am disgusted by this!

    • Sam says:

      The government are the ones responsible not the guy marrying the biracial woman,go compain to them and your local MPs instead

      2 time divorced? I see the tumblr people are here spreading their shit.Anyways continue to be disgusted while the biracial girl marries with all those pomp and pageantry you dont think she deserves and while you stay in your home seething about it 😏😏

    • Mara says:

      only twice? Perhaps she will also have the audacity to wear white.
      the horror

    • notasugarhere says:

      The wedding, dress, receptions are all being paid for with their private funds.

      The security is a matter for the government, as it was for Edward and Sophie’s wedding at Windsor, Autumn and Peter’s wedding at Windsor, Zara and Mike’s wedding in Scotland. Agreed Sam, the desperation lies the tumblr crowd keep spreading need to be confronted.

      • Veronica says:

        Don’t you always say that the Duchy pays for the younger royals’ expenses and that the Duchy belongs to the taxpayers? Or is it just their working expenses? Not being snarky, just confused.
        And still, 30 million is a lot of money to ask the taxpayers to fork over for security for the 6th in line marrying a divorced woman. It is bound to cause resentment, as I am reading that many necessary surgeries and treatments are being cancelled by the NHS. I’m not saying it’s right, just that it is bad optics.

      • Wowsers says:

        A bit like your desperation in saying William “stole” Kate’s engagement ring off Harry.

        Evidence? Oh right, “royal forums”. Case closed, your honour!

      • notasugarhere says:

        It has been stated that expenses are being paid privately, and when the royals say that, they mean personal funds not Duchy. Surprising you seem to fail to recognize that.

        Trusting the DM for facts is like trusting Trump to tell the truth. The event hasn’t happened yet, so any speculation about costs is just that, speculation. Just like comparing security costs from W&K wedding 8 years ago is apples to oranges, because the world is a very different place now.

        While some of you resent it, there are millions of people in the UK who are celebrating this marriage. Who are divorced and remarried themselves and who are thankful for a House of God that doesn’t discriminate against them as some of you do. God’s House welcomes them to celebrate their second marriages in full religious services, proudly and openly instead of hidden away. Don’t like it, don’t join the CoE.

        There are plenty who plan to show up, like PrincessK and her daughters, to line the streets for this historic event. If you are a citizen of the UK, go protest and join RepublicUK.

        Bad optics would be hiding away the bi-racial bride in a quickie civil wedding. Those optics matter immensely, and yes, race is a factor here again as much as some people like to pretend otherwise.

        The choice of Windsor is smaller, and already less expensive than securing a London event in the era of soft targets. It is the best choice that balances public perception and security.

      • Veronica says:

        Thanks for your response.
        And in the US, second weddings are generally a smaller, more private celebration. Her race has nothing to do with her being married before, nor did I say a word about a church wedding. I like that divorced people can remarry in a church wedding. But big, huge weddings for a second marriage are considered tacky and showy by people who think about those things. Perhaps things are different in England.

      • Tina says:

        It is the first marriage for Harry, 5th (soon to be 6th) in line to the throne. It is the protocol relating to him that is relevant here. Other European royals have behaved similarly. Felipe and divorcée Letizia had a fairly big wedding, as did Haakon and Mette-Marit (who had previously had a child from another relationship). It is not considered tacky for a prince of the realm to marry at St George’s, Windsor. His divorcé father and his divorcée mother-in-law had a marriage blessing in precisely the same place.

      • C. Remm says:

        Thank you very much for this wonderful and clear comment. I fully agree with everything you said.

      • notasugarhere says:

        “But big, huge weddings for a second marriage are considered tacky and showy by people who think about those things.” Veronica, you are expressing your opinion. You do not speak for everyone else and their opinions.

        Race is indeed an issue here, whether some acknowledge it or not. And the continuing belief that a divorced woman is some kind of soiled dove who should be ashamed to marry again, much less in a House of God? That is a Western Christian moralistic sentiment that is fast dying out. It is 2018, time to get over it.

        I personally have nothing against divorced persons and feel they have every right to celebrate as they see fit, including a large religious service if their house of worship allows.

        Thanx, C Remm

      • Masamf says:

        @Veronica, I’m confused by your comments. So because in the US second wedding are smaller (though I could give you numerous examples that would prove you so inaccurate but WE) so it should be so for a prince of the United Kingdom?

        @Notasugarhere, thank you for your kindness, your thoughtful posts and your voice of reason. For the LORD sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart.” “For we all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” “Let him who has never sinned cast the first rock”

      • C. Remm says:

        Is it really such a good thing to stay in a unhappy marriage and make the whole family unhappy? Is that so much better than getting a divorce?

  40. Tata Mata says:

    The Queen’s jewelry and when it was worn and history


    2nd pic: apparently Kate is only really happy when she gets new bling or new dresses. Just look at that choker and look at Kate’s happy smile.

    • Veronica says:

      That has to be one consolation for being married to William and the loss of privacy and security: to play in the jewelry collection. If I were in her shoes, I would be studying all of the royal jewels, and playing with them all of the time!!

  41. Peg says:

    Everything is so easy to research nowadays, provide proof that Meghan was divorced twice before.
    We’re all going to get older, don’t mean you’ve to lie about someone.
    Why not write the Minister of Defense, and complain, Oops you’ve to be British to do that.

  42. irene says:


    Re speculation over the Fife, it was given to the government last year in lieu of inheritance tax and is now on display at Kensington Palace.

    See the link above for video and photos. It is utterly gorgeous and at least won’t be auctioned to be broken up or disappear into a private collection, but it is made to be worn and I’m sad it probably never will be again.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Wonder if Charles could make a deal, to lease it from Historic Royal Palaces for one of the royal ladies to wear? That would be unusual for the BRF but not for other royal families. Odd it ended up with HRP and not the Victoria and Albert.

      Mary and Marie of Denmark both have tiaras made “in their honor” by a jeweler and have agreements to be the only ones allowed to wear them. They don’t own them, but can borrow them. Marie’s is the tragic amethyst lily, while Mary’s is the (glorious oh I want this one for myself) Midnight Tiara.

      The Midnight appears to have taken design inspiration from a moonstone and floral tiara designed by May Morris, daughter of William Morris. ArtHistorian, if you’re here, have you seen the Morris one?

    • LAK says:

      Thanks for the update Irene. Didn’t realise they’d given it up. Going to go to KP to have a look. :)

      • irene says:

        PLEASE report back, LAK. Can it really be as glorious as it looks in the video, close up and with perfect lighting. The trembling drops are exquisite.

    • Veronica says:

      When I went to that link, I watched a video about the Fife tiara. It is remarkable. The only thing that excites me about royalty is the jewelry, as I am a jeweler.
      In that video, there are two old pictures of Louise with two other women. In the first picture, she is on the right and is wearing a tiara whose front center is a floral shape. It is lovely! Does anyone know what tiara that is?

  43. MyLittlePony says:

    I believe she is going to get a new piece, probably made of some brooches, or whatever stones they have to spare. Yet I would love to see some long forgotten little tiara again.

  44. hmmm says:

    Kate’s tiara, IMO, was modest and low key. It will be interesting to see what Meghan’s will be. It would be awesome if Harry commissioned a new one for her (mockery, here). if it’s bigger and blingier from the vaults what would that tell you?

  45. Petty Riperton says:

    I don’t see her wearing one at all

  46. raincoaster says:

    Not that anyone listens to me, but my vote is the Russian tiara. It’s a striking modernist piece of jewelry, and Meghan has a modernist approach to clothes, sleek and classic rather than bedazzled with buttons or plagued with patterns. The Russian tiara also isn’t seen on the younger royals, ever, so that would be a big change.


    Also: the Spencer tiara is totally an option, at the discretion of the Earl of Spencer. He can loan it out to whoever he likes, whenever he likes, for whatever occasion he likes. But he’s a bit of a jerk, so he probably won’t.

    • Peg says:

      He did offer to lend it, but beware of Charles Spencer bearing gifts.

      • Liberty says:

        This. A jeweler named David Bader told the press a few days ago that the Spencer Tiara is available to Meghan if she chooses to wear it. I believe the article reporting this was a link to the Mirror I stumbled across, so take that as you will. But, I think the family recognized Diana’s special fondness for Harry, who after all has the Spencer bloodline, so, it is possible.

    • notasugarhere says:

      I think that is one of the two fringes I reference above. The other one is Queen Adelaide’s fringe, which HM is wearing as a necklace in the first photo in the article you linked.

      Earl Spencer abandoned his sister and made money off her death for 20 years. I cannot see either W or H wanting much to do with him or a family tiara, even if Spencer went against accepted norms to offer it.