By all accounts, the Duchess of Sussex’s visit to City, University of London was a smashing success. Teenagers and 20-somethings were lining up to get a glimpse of her. The office buildings around the event had workers straining out of their windows to see her. So I feel a little bit sorry for those well-wishers that Meghan’s outfit was kind of boring and goth-lite. Meghan repeated a Givenchy coat, as we said yesterday. But it looks like she did a bespoke Givenchy dress which was new-to-us. Again, I don’t understand bespoke stuff for pregnant women. Unless you’re going to the Oscars or some huge red-carpet thing, I just feel like “stretchy and off-the-rack” would be fine. Meghan also repeated a pair of Manolo Blahniks which we’ve seen before.
In a month – or longer – Meghan and Harry will be moving into Frogmore Cottage. Reportedly, they’ve been enjoying the renovation process and the decorating choices they’ve had to make. They’ve committed to a grey-and-white palette for the nursery. But now Vanity Fair’s Katie Nicholl says that the Sussexes are getting yet another gift from the Queen: their choice of priceless artwork from the Royal Collection, arguably the greatest collection of artwork in the world.
Vanity Fair has learned that the Sussexes were gifted a very special housewarming present from the Queen, to be placed in their Windsor dream house ahead of the arrival of their baby in April. Harry’s grandmother has invited them to choose several pieces from her priceless art collection to hang in their new home.
“Meghan and Harry have been told they can choose some art work for Frogmore Cottage,” says a Palace insider. “They have been presented with a list of paintings that would be available to them and they are making up their minds as to what they would like to hang in their new home.”
When it comes to choosing a piece, Harry and Meghan will have an array of options. The Royal Art Collection is the largest collection of privately owned art in the world. Comprising more than 1 million pieces. It is housed in royal residences around the country and includes six Rembrandts, more than 50 paintings by Canaletto, at least 600 drawings by Leonardo Da Vinci, and over 13 Rubens paintings, plus, at least 20 drawings by Michelangelo. The collection also includes contemporary works by the likes of Andy Warhol and Anish Kapoor. The Queen also allowed Prince William and Kate Middleton to choose from the collection after their marriage, and several of her favorite paintings are on display in Anmer Hall and the Cambridges’ apartments in Kensington Palace.
Both Meghan and Harry are avid art collectors. Harry reportedly spent several thousand pounds on a painting for Meghan, Everybody Needs Somebody to Love by British artist Van Donna, during their courtship. Meghan’s interest in art is something she has apparently bonded over with her father-in-law, Prince Charles.
I seem to remember that Prince Harry is quite artistic – he paints too, like his dad, although I think Charles is much more prolific. But I like that the Queen gave them a pre-approved list of what they could choose from, so there would be no issues of “but I want THAT painting, granny!” Can you even imagine having access to that kind of heavy-duty art work? Having original da Vincis on your walls? Getting to look at a Rembrandt every single day? Lordy. And I would be willing to bet that unlike the Cambridges, they won’t have unfortunately-named artwork in their sitting room.
Photos courtesy of Backgrid, WENN.
I don’t necessarily believe anything by Katie Nicholl since she’s usually wrong about everything and I don’t like the way she framed it as a gift rather than a loan, since it will be a loan. (She even agreed with that after someone on twitter criticized her for her wording.) But anyway, this is exactly what was done for the Cambridges, and most likely every other royal setting up house. Hopefully we won’t hear “inside palace sources” making up stories later about how Meghan made the queen cry after demanding paintings that were offered and then withdrawn or yelled at staff about ugly frames or something. We should write up the most ridiculous things we can imagine and see how long it takes royal reporters to claim it as fact. #myPalaceSource
I believe it. In my old company when you went into your office you had a list of art work available in storage for you to hang. She’s gifting the loan. Most everything including their houses are loans from the Crown at the end of the day.
If a small company can do it, surely a home that will have historical photos taken inside (like when Cambridges were hosting the Obamas) should have historical British pieces.
Let’s see: Meghan texted the Queen at 5:00 am demanding certain paintings and threw a huge fit when the Queen said no. Meghan then threatened to throw avocado toast at the Queen, making some such drought somewhere worse. The Queen cried, Kate cried, Phillip cried, and Will adjusted his scarf. After a pre-dawn break-in at the Palace where Meghan repelled down the walls in a bespoke dress and high heels, she made off with the entire collection in her purse. Whipped Harry then carried it for her. The DM then interviews her father who complains that she’s not sharing the art with him. In 3, 2, 1…
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
YUP, I can see it going down JUST LIKE THAT 😄
Lol😂
Himmiefan,
you are a gem!
LOL LOL LOL!
@ Royalwatcher
I hear (#mypalacesource), that Meghan has requested 3 dozen Rembrandts for her particular use. She has demanded that the all be in the same colour family, or else! 😤😤
I hear she’s demanding that each painting be carried individually by hand (rather than hung), by a pair of servants for each painting. Wearing all white costumes.
I’ve even heard from an extremely reliable source (#mypalacesource) that she wrote to the Queen, demanding that her chosen paintings be framed in emerald-cabochon encrusted frames.
Did you hear that she angrily demanded some of the paintings currently hanging in the queens private residence? And when she was told they were unavailable, (because Queen)…..she had to be physically restrained.
And yes, your source is right. The Queen cried.
#mypalacesource
Bella Dupont stop please 😂😂
ha ha ha ha ha!
“making up stories later about how Meghan made the queen cry after demanding paintings that were offered and then withdrawn……”……..LMAO…😂
I liked her outfit yesterday! Yes, all black but very pretty and she looked very nice.
As to the art – I cant imagine having access to that kind of artwork to hang in your house. Wow.
And I feel like at least now we know how the tiara-picking went down. “Here are the tiaras available to you. Pick one.”
Ouuu I do not like this look. She looks so severe with her hair done like that. If it wasn’t pulled so tight to the scalp, maybe I’d like it more. But it’s the combination of the hair with the all black outfit I think that throws it off. Her hair done like that while wearing jewel tones, or something brighter/lighter wouldn’t come off so harsh, I think. I also don’t really understand the coat. It looks like it’s a short sleeve jacket with sleeves added … I’m guessing it’s supposed to be kind of cape like? If she’d swapped the jacket for one of her lighter colored ones I think it’d be a lot better.
Take the Da Vinci. Stay away from those baroque frames. LOL.
Seriously though, kinda cool.
When my son was a child he used to draw on the walls with his crayons and pretend he was a artist. Can you imagine if their child managed to be able to reach one of those paintings?
Prince Harry: “Gran Gran, you know that lovely Rembrandt you let us have? Well TS(Toddler Sussex) decided to make it “more pretty” You do like sunshine yellow and Kermit green I hope?
RBC, that’s what I was thinking. A toddler flinging a remote could do damage. I went to the Charles 2nd exhibition last year and fell in love with Rembrandt’s portrait of his mother. So beautiful. It’s annoying that a lot of the artwork it is hidden away.
The sheer volume of culturally and historically significant art in this private collection, tucked away from public view, is overwhelming. It just seems a waste to display them in these private residences for a handful of people to appreciate. Sigh.
Yeah this is kind of the flip side to my initial reaction of “wow! imagine getting to pick from this kind of art!”…..imagine having that much art hanging in private residences as part of the “royal collection” and the public does not get to view it.
Vanity Fair is wrong on this – the Royal Collection is not privately owned, it is owned by the Crown. Even the royal family website acknowledges this. I agree that it is a shame that we can’t see more of it, but we can visit Buckingham Palace (where a lot of the staggering Canaletto are kept), Windsor Castle, and the Queen’s Gallery, where they rotate pieces from the Royal Collection.
I agree. The “royal collection” belongs to the nation not just the monarch.
I absolutely agree, all historically significant art must be exhibited in museums .
It’s a lovely idea, but simply not possible. Most museums can’t display much of what they already own – they don’t have the space and many pieces are too fragile to be put on display (at least not for more than a few days/weeks at a time). The Book of Kells, one of the most important pieces of Irish art in existence, only has two pages on display at a time and they have to be switched out every few days.
There is also the cost factor – there is no museum, or even consortium of museums that could afford to buy out the Royal Collection or the Vatican Collection (the two largest privately owned collections in the world, both of which are, at least in part, open to the public).
The idea that any of the Middle Eastern monarchs or Russian oligarchs would allow anyone to inventory at their private collections, much less value and purchase them is absurd. It will not happen. Because when it does, that’s where you will find things like Vermeer’s “The Concert”, stolen from the Isabella Stuart Gardiner Museum in 1990.
The quantity and quality is completely overwhelming. That said, they are very good about lending things out, putting many of the best pieces on public display and allowing academic access to much of the rest of the collection. Far better than many, if not most, other private collections.
There is only one Vermeer in the collection. I’ve seen it in the US twice – in DC in 1995 and in New York in 2001. Recently, it has been kept in Buckingham Palace, but is hung in the part of the palace that is open to the public during the summer.
Right?! I was at a museum in LA that had a private collection of Picasso’s on display but you couldn’t take pictures “at the request of the owners”.
And my thought was…what kind of controlling, greedy type of asshole do you have to be to not only hoard the collection itself, but even the proliferation of images? The only way for the art to be shared is through pictures, so long as it sits in your stuffy living room. And to provide such conditional access, lest the value of your precious paintings be diminished through sharing, just disgusted me.
That’s actually a very common request for private collections or even collections from other museums that are touring. At our art museum, it’s very rarely allowed that you can photograph the special exhibitions, and when we saw the special Van Gogh exhibit at the Orsay a few years ago, there was a strict no photos rule. It is frustrating, but at the same time, a lot of people don’t listen to the no flash rules, and I wouldn’t want my private artwork potentially damaged or degraded either 🤷🏻♀️
I understand that. It’s ridiculous seeing people walking around a gallery taking selfies of themselves in front of paintings then walking on after 30 seconds. Big flashes going off also ruins other people’s enjoyment and as Hello says could damage the artwork.
A lot of museums and galleries have this rule, for two key reasons: 1. Lots of people, even when told not to, accidentally or purposely use flashes which damage the paintings over time. It’s easier just to say no photos. 2. Many owners of paintings license copies/images of the painting out and therefore do not want every person out there to have a photo of said painting. They license the paintings out to make postcards, posters, coffee table books, magnets and more. The people who make those pay for the privilege. Museums often make good money that goes back into the museum (always needed) by selling these goods.
What is going on with the color of her outfit? Is is super blue in one pic….or do I need more coffee?
Not just you. The picture wear it is really blue makes the outfit look stunning.
Yes! If the ensemble had been that blue (Royal Blue?!) as it looks in that one pic, it would have been gorgeous!! In black, it’s meh.
All that wealth and their are people starving, homeless and dying from not having money.
Makes my motherfucking blood boil. The monarchy should be abolished. But like the Sex Pistols said: “tourists are MONEY!”
the paintings and jewels wouldst probably Not behold. they are public assets, but not to ne sold, they are priceless. Some rich people sell it, but a country selling it?
There are times when I think being a member of the Royal Family must be akin to living in a gilded cage.
Then there are times it sounds divine and totally worth the invasion of privacy. This is one of those times.
Sounds like the arrangement the white house has with the museums in DC.
Yes …th “we wanna be normal” narrative completely disappears when u realise that this is their normal…
Part of the reason they only get to pick “certain” pieces of art also has to do with the insurance and security that needs to be in place for some of the rare pieces. You would not believe the security door thickness, special windows and endless security measures that have to be in place for certain art to be hung in a private home. Its an enormous expense. They don’t want an Isabella Gardner robbery after all.
I would love to have a peek inside Frogmore Cottage once it is finished.