Oh, Duchess Kate altered Diana’s sapphire earrings too, what about the ‘history’??

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge visit the Cinemagic in Ballymena

Before every newspaper and tabloid in Britain screamed and cried about Duchess Meghan – and Meghan alone – spending $3 million to renovate Frogmore Cottage, the story was about how Meghan had her engagement ring altered at some point in the past few months. It started out as an observation, “look, her engagement ring has a different band now, I wonder why,” and it became “the Duchess of Sussex does not respect history, she’s ‘uppity’ because she changed a ring!!” Royal commentator/gatekeeper Ingrid Seward even chimed in with this: “I find it a bit odd Meghan would want to alter a ring that her husband had especially designed for her. A royal engagement ring is a piece of history not a bit of jewellery to be updated when it looks old fashioned.” A PIECE OF HISTORY. Like Meghan is a graverobber who stole this ring from Princess Diana and then had the audacity to alter it! Harry had the ring designed in 2017, for what it’s worth.

Anyway, with all of this talk about the HISTORY of certain pieces of jewelry worn by royalty, it’s worth noting that the Duchess of Cambridge has already altered several pieces which used to belong to Diana. As I said in an early post, Kate had her engagement ring altered a bit – the diamond-surround setting is different now and the sapphire “sits up” more. In addition to getting her hands on Big Blue, Kate was also given Diana’s entire sapphire suite – a sapphire-and-diamond pendant necklace and a pair of sapphire-and-diamond earrings. Guess who had the earrings altered? Meg, obvs! No, Kate had them altered. BUT HISTORY.

The Duchess of Sussex is far from alone in making stylish adjustments to royal jewellery. While Meghan recently swapped out the band on her engagement ring for a more delicate pavé option, the Duchess of Cambridge has transformed a pair of sapphire and diamond earrings that once belonged to Diana, Princess of Wales. A gift from the Duke of Cambridge shortly before their wedding, the set perfectly matches the late Princess’s – and Kate’s – 12-carat sapphire engagement ring.

Princess Diana frequently wore the double-drop earrings, believed to be part of the suite gifted to her by the Crown Prince Fahd of Saudi Arabia on the occasion of her wedding. The royal notably paired them with a seven-strand pearl choker during a visit to the White House under President Ronald Reagan in 1985, where she famously danced with John Travolta. The Princess also opted to wear the set while posing for the cover of Vogue’s July 1994 issue in honour of her 33rd birthday. The Duchess of Cambridge, however, has removed the top circular sapphires.

[From British Vogue]

You can see Diana’s original earrings here at British Vogue. I mean… I understand why Kate altered the earrings – she prefers simple drops and the original version was too “chunky” and formal. Kate would not have felt comfortable pairing those earrings with all of her day-business coatdresses. But where are all of those pearl-clutching old biddies crying and wailing about HISTORY right now? Oh wait you mean the whole point of the conversation was to otherize a biracial woman and berate her for having nice things, get out of town.

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge visit the Cinemagic in Ballymena

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge visit the Cinemagic in Ballymena

Photos courtesy of WENN.

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

191 Responses to “Oh, Duchess Kate altered Diana’s sapphire earrings too, what about the ‘history’??”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. The Twinkle Function says:

    I know Im gonna get yelled at but Kate has the worst complexion EVAAAAA.

    She looks like she’s in her mid 40′s for crying out loud.

    In fact, she always has that ‘hungover’ look where it doesnt matter what you do, the makeup wont go on properly because youre so dehydrated and desicated from a night on the turps.

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      I have seen her in person and she has bad skin – its very dry and leathery looking due to sun and smoking damage. No amount of makeup can hide that kind of damage. Pippa and Carole are the same.

      • The Twinkle Function says:

        I dont get it. She has been a public figure for at least ten years so surely she has access to supreme skincare? Im a mere peasant and almost 45 years old and use el cheapo rosehip oil and still manage to look relatively youthful.

        Its all very strange.

      • Megan says:

        Its Fraxel lasering not approved for use in the UK? A few treatments would do wonders for her skin.

      • Cee says:

        Her skin is terrible. I can be due to genetics (eg: Carole), the heavy partying she did in the Waity Decade and the smoking. She could also actually do something about it. First step would be wearing sunscreen all the time (#1 anti-aging treatment EVER) and getting cosmetic treatments to nourish her skin. It’s not about her wrinkles but the texture of her skin.

      • Blue Orange says:

        She does look older than her years and I know the name of this site is celebitchy but I can’t help but feel its rather mean to get on her case about not being vain enough to regularly botox/have skin peels/laser treatments.

        I remember a month or so back when some douche celeb commented about how William & British men in general were not vain enough (or something along those lines) because he is balding and doing nothing about it. Everyone agreed in the comments that it was good that William seemed at peace with his looks and vanity in general is bad, not good, so why are we talking like Kate is terrible for not spending time and money on treatments?

        I think if anything we need to se more real and natural looking woman in the media, who don’t spend fortunes on skincare and surgery.

      • JustBitchy says:

        @digital unicorn. I’m with you sat at the table next to Kate Pippa and Momma a couple of months before wedding. Too much sun too much dieting. Also the center stone is more like 8 or 7 carats. It is not 18. Maybe with the diamonds it totals 18. Momma’ ring is very small and she has an entry level Rolex.

      • Wigletwatcher says:

        Kate’s skin has always been a piece of conversation because of the photoshop. Her early photos were flawless. FLAWLESS. Birthmarks even removed. Eye color altered from filters. And when people saw her in person or a civilians Twitter photo popped up she looked haggard by comparison.

        I think this is a situation she had a hand in creating during image cultivation. We still think back to those early images and are still shocked at how bad her natural appearance can be. From a health perspective.

        Should have read below before commenting! Agree!

      • Jenn says:

        @Twinkle Function I just looked up her skincare routine (lol), and she also uses rosehip oil! She uses a whole lot of expensive anti-aging stuff, too — which I think is a mistake, just because it can be so harsh on sensitive skin.

        In fact, I think her skin’s “dryness” is actually an adverse reaction to her routine’s overemphasis on acids. Sensitive, reactive skin-havers do best with PHAs (not AHAs or BHAs) for ultra-gentle exfoliation. If combo skin suddenly “goes dry,” it means stop what you’re doing and focus on restoring your moisture barrier!! (I used a lot of “status-symbol” products on my face, and my face completely dried out, so now I am very passionate about all of this. Simplest is best!!!)

    • AB says:

      Not yelling at you, but counterpoint: we are so used to seeing filtered and photoshopped pictures and gobs of spackle covering every flaw that we forget what actual human skin looks like. Her complexion looks normal to good, tbh. Especially for someone who has undergone three pregnancies, which truly does suck the life out of you.

      • Maria says:

        Her pics are already heavily photoshopped and she still has a sallow, dry complexion in them, so that argument doesn’t really work here.

        Sunbathing, smoking, and extreme dieting are all to blame here.

      • ShazBot says:

        AB, I agree that we aren’t used to see what real people really look like. That said, Kate isn’t a “real” person, in that she has so much money, time and access and she is someone who cares deeply about her appearance, so I think it’s just more fascinating that she doesn’t put more focus on improving her skin. Her heavy stage make up won’t work forever.

      • Maria says:

        Kate isn’t a real person?! Wow! What is she, a dummy?

      • Lady D says:

        Need an emoji that shows a small gust of wind whooshing over someone’s head.

    • Erinn says:

      I don’t think it’s just smoking and sun. I think she’s just at a disadvantage in that arena genetically. I mean, we can slather all the product in the world on a person – but it won’t always work. Sometimes genetics just prevail. Of course lifestyle plays an important role – but I avoid the sun like the plague. I don’t smoke. And I am 29 with a deep line between my brows and really difficult skin.

      • A says:

        Genetics certainly plays a huge part in it, but it doesn’t hurt to look after your skin in spite of poor genetics. I don’t think we’re all going to have glowing, dewy, flawless complexions just because we’re slathering on the serums and whatnot, but having a proper routine, adequate sun protection, etc can help w/ whatever you’ve got. And fwiw, Carole has pretty nice skin for her age, so I don’t think Kate or Pippa’s genetics are quite so bad.

      • Lulu says:

        @ERINN bingo. I smoked and partied away my 20s and still am mistaken for 26 at 36 years of age and 3 kids later. It’s genetics.

    • Yennefer of Vengerburger & fries says:

      Get of your cross, nobody’s going to yell at you for ragging on Kate Middleton, 37 years old, on Celebitchy. Just gently point out that you’re being a bit… like that.

      Really, people? We’re going to target women for aging now? Because last I checked, even rich people can’t fight aging completely. Case in point, the ever-emotive Emilia Clark having strong wrinkles at 32 because she really does emote with her face a lot. That + genetics. Can we not?

      Swear to god this site’s userbase is about as selectively feminist and body positive as it gets.

      • Maria says:

        Yennefer- you’re entitled to your opinion. But Kate has spent more time shopping and getting her hair done (with public money) than she has ever spent working for initiatives in the United Kingdom or in the world.
        Her favorite salon is Rossano Ferretti. The color reportedly takes 6 hours to do. When was the last time Kate spent 6 hours of her own volition at an event that wasn’t scheduled to be an all-day program (and how many of those does she do anyway)?

        If her biggest concern is her appearance, and clues point to that, then that’s what we will discuss.

      • ali says:

        Agree Yennefer.

      • Tater tot says:

        @Yennefer and Ali Yessssssss, thank you! 🙌🏻

      • MrsBump says:

        very true
        the selective feminism on display here is mind boggling.

        So what if her skin doesn’t look good ? So what if she partied in her youth, so what is she spends time in the salon ? Who cares how long her colour takes ?
        Are we policing women for this now, or just the ones we don’t like ?

        Comments on her fashion is fair game, especially given the astronomical taxpayer costs involved, but the trolling of her skin, weight, whatever is just gross and justifying it by saying “i have the right criticize her body because she doesn’t work enough as per my expectations” is beyond pathetic.

      • Gail says:

        @Yennefer, couldn’t agree more.

      • olive says:

        nothing wrong with pointing out that her skin looks bad because she has years of tanning and smoking behind her. her skin looks bad because of her choices. we’re not slamming her for something she didn’t have control over, like when people point out her long torso. she can’t help that, but she chose to sunbathe and smoke for years and this is what happens to your skin when you do that.

      • Clementine says:

        The word “bitch” *is* in the name…

      • Gia says:

        Say something equally critical of Meghan’s skin and her decolletage being darker than her arms and you will be …

    • tcbc says:

      Her skin is fine. I bet most of us wouldn’t look as good as we think we do if photographed constantly with HD cameras.

      And even if it’s bad, so what? Honestly we treat women’s perceived physical “flaws” as moral failures and it’s exhausting.

      • Kittycat says:

        I’m Kate’s age and I look 10 years younger with not even 1 percent of her money.

        But yes it’s down to genetics, lifestyle etc.

      • Al says:

        I mean, good for you, Kittycat, but not everything has to be a competition. Especially how “well” women age.

      • Maria says:

        +1 tcbc

      • ArsenioBillingham says:

        @kittycat–in my experience, women who smirk about how much older other women look do not look as good themselves as they think they do.

      • Moses says:

        +1 arsenio

        People who swear up and down that they look a good ten years younger never do. They just have blinders on when it comes to their appearance. Me, I take care of my skin. I get “baby botox” to help hold off wrinkles, and I use products that work really well. But nothing on this planet is going to make me look 25 again and I accept that.

      • Kebbie says:

        It’s the same as people making snarky comments on celebs in bathing suits…if they only knew what they themselves actually look like, they wouldn’t be so snarky.

        Yes, we’re all far younger than our years with youthful dewy skin behind these keyboards 🙄

      • FuefinaWG says:

        @Moses: I look 10 years younger than my age. I haven’t been in the sun since I turned 21, I started using eye cream in my early 20′s, I get a facial every 30 days, I don’t smoke, and I have a glass of wine everyday. I also get a little Botox between my eyes because I inherited a deep furrow from my dad. I have good genes (both my parents had good skin) but my sisters aren’t as lucky as me. I’ve been receiving compliments on my skin for ages from both young and old alike.

      • ArsenioBillingham says:

        @fuefina
        Sure Jan.

    • HayleyK says:

      I don’t like throwing shade, but it’s just so confusing to me that there are SO many actresses that smoke cigarettes and tan like crazy but NONE of their skin looks like hers? I think we can all agree – to varying extents – that Kate totally dabbles in botox. So it’s just weird to me that she wouldn’t use some kind of laser treatment to improve her complexion too.

      • Kylie says:

        It does when they haven’t been made up by a team of makeup artists or have filters to help disguise any imperfections. Because of how mean people can be about any sign of aging, many actresses take pains not to be seen when their skin isn’t looking good.

    • CatMomma says:

      Why would anyone yell at you? That’s not an unpopular opinion on here.

    • Coco says:

      Around the time of her wedding I remember reading that she always does her own makeup. I don’t know if that’s true, but I think she or whoever does it could make her look much better if she was willing to change some things. Her eyebrows, especially, are colored too dark and are verging into Joan Crawford territory. Like with the joke about Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ eye makeup, critiquing makeup choices is not necessarily mean-spirited, especially when you consider that the Duchess of Cambridge has access to any product or procedure or professional in the world.

    • Clementine says:

      I have always felt that she looks dehydrated. I’m wondering if she’s not a big water drinker? “Common folk” don’t get their pics taken half as much, which is when this typically shows up the worst.

    • Hazel says:

      With nasty comments like this, I’m assuming all you posters are young with beautiful soft skin…lol!

    • kellybean says:

      You won’t get yelled at because the fact that Kate looks so old is discussed ad nauseum on a daily basis. I’m not even a Kate fan but it is just disturbing at this point when the double standard of ageism is our society is decried in regards to other celebrities yet it seems to be a crime that Kate doesn’t look 28 again?

      I do not see problem skin.She looks like a real person to me and, as someone with Rosacea, I would be quite happy to have her complexion. There also aren’t any miracle cures that will give everyone a flawless airbrushed complexion, despite what the cosmetic community would like us to believe. She’s still an attractive woman and not pursuing a career as a model. I think there are things for which criticism of Kate is warranted. I know this is a gossip website , yet the attacks on her physical appearance seem unduly harsh at this point.

    • leena says:

      Yes you will get yelled at, and some of the repliers to you. However much we try we cannot all be blessed with a perfect skin (I know from personal experience and I don’t smoke or sun worship). There are many skin conditions which lucky people know nothing about, like adult acne, rosacea to mention but two.

      There are other things to criticise Kate for but stop body shaming her – which is what this is.

    • Tigerlily says:

      Doesn’t matter how high end or excellent her skin care products are, they cannot counteract constant sunbathing plus smoking. And I am not saying she should be getting intrusive treatments like lasers or peels. Just stating a fact: her lifestyle choices are reflected in her complexion.

  2. Erinn says:

    I can see why she altered the earrings. There’s enough for two pairs of BIG earrings in the original pieces. They were incredibly clunky.

    I also think it’s up to Meghan on how she wants to alter her jewelry. The more I thought about it the more it made sense to swap the band out just to have the eternity ring and the pave band surround the welsh(?) gold ring.

    Now – I could see there being an issue if they took a historic engagement ring and turned it into a necklace, or something like that. But at the end of the day the earrings are still earrings with the same basic style – just streamlined. The ring is still a ring – again, streamlined.

    Considering how many pieces are broken up and made into new pieces, people just need to stop.

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      The original setting was very very 80s.

      • (TheOG)@Jan90067 says:

        ALL royal women, over time, have altered pieces, from making tiaras into necklaces (and back), to exchanging stones from emeralds to pearls to diamonds. TQ has done it, her mother, and God knows Queen Mary did it a LOT. But of course, only ONE PERSON is tampering with HISTORY!! when she does it. WHO CARES WHY Meg wanted a different band? Her ring her choice. As long as she loves it, and feels Harry is fine with it, why does anyone care?

    • Eliza says:

      The original earrings actually broke into two. Diana wore them frequently as studs. Kate added the ability to wear them as drops. Royal women alter royal jewelry; its very common. Honestly it’s usually to its detriment.

      I think Meghan got slack because it was an engagement ring her husband of only a year designed for her. I mean there’s plenty of royal engagement rings that are truly awful (Princess Marie’s!!) but I can’t think of another one changed. I assume sentiment of their husbands design matters more than the ugly ring. (P.S. I do not think Meghan’s original ring was ugly, and think the pave didn’t add anything to the ring)

      • Maria says:

        Diana changed the setting of her ring to add more prongs. Princess Mary of Denmark has altered her ring. It’s not unusual at all.

      • Bella DuPont says:

        There’s only 1 reason she’s getting flack for it: Because she’s Meghan, Biracial Princess. Simple as.

      • Erinn says:

        I liked the original design a lot better because I’m not into the pave bands. I think the one thing that surprised me was how soon it was altered – but I also didn’t receive an anniversary ring after one year. So I would assume there’s a chance a woman might want to make her engagement ring to match a newer band – it’s just usually spaced out more. But after the crazy year that she’s had, I think a nice piece of jewelry to mark that they’d made it through the first year was kind of nice.

        And that’s kind of my thing with pave bands – I think a of lot time they don’t add anything, and I find that they can make some rings look tackier. But when they’re done right – they’re stunning.

        I mean – Bella, I agree to a large degree. But I think there are plenty of women out there that if you gave them the story of a woman having her ring designed by a very proud husband to be altering it before the one year anniversary with NO names attached – they’d pause. I think that a good deal of the hate is absolutely because they don’t like a biracial princess – but I think if this was someone that lived a normal lifestyle and who decided to do that people would still think it was kind of surprising.

      • MrsBanjo says:

        Come on, now. That’s not why Meghan got slack. It doesn’t matter what other people thing. It’s her ring, her choice. She didn’t alter the arrangement of the heirloom diamonds. She changed the band, which was not heirloom. BFD. The royals have been doing that to all their jewelry for centuries.

        The need for people to explain away in defence of Kate while simultaneously finding reasons why Meghan is wrong is astounding.

      • Bella DuPont says:

        @ Erinn

        I couldn’t disagree more. I just don’t think in a tumultuous world with so many things going on constantly, that anybody gives a damn who changed whose ring and when. It’s far too irrelevant an event (especially when the alteration is barely noticeable).

        It’s only relevant because it’s Meghan. AND because she’s biracial. That’s where the “gratitude” element comes into it. They can barely get their heads around the fact a POC is in her position and enjoying a lifestyle the believe she just doesn’t deserve. She should be deeply grateful for the (undeserved) ring and changing it shows she very clearly does NOT understand her true place.

        That, and also, any opportunity to bash Meghan is a good one.

        That’s how I see this, I’m afraid. :’(

      • Bella DuPont says:

        Princess Diana, Camilla, Fergie etc got criticized for all sorts of incredibly sleazy acts of infidelity (often with multiple men)……

        Meghan gets shredded for altering her own ring.

      • HK9 says:

        Meghan got flack for it because the mixed race woman should just be glad to be there and should have no opinion whatsoever. Let’s call a thing a thing.

      • Nic919 says:

        Ingrid Seward was going on about the history of a ring created in 2017. It’s completely ridiculous.

      • Yup, Me says:

        Most men are not jewelry designers and it sometimes shows in the results of their efforts. I don’t think women should be obligated to leave an item they regularly wear on their own hands untouched just because their husband designed it.

        For instance, Sophie of Wessex and that fugly cross her groom designed that she wore for their wedding. One time wear- sure maybe. Daily wear – absolutely not- no matter who he is. Not without some significant alterations.

        And yes, Marie’s ring is also ugly.

      • Moose says:

        @MrsB & Bella, I agree its nothing new, she only got grief because she’s Meghan.

        This is why I love the sussexsquad on twitter, they have facts & evidence to counter the racist RR accusations. They also have some great graphics depicting things such as the actual cost of Meghan’s jewellery, comparing the sizes & costs of royal homes, the achievements of Kate & Meghan before they married into the royal family…. Interesting stuff. Just a pity the RRs are blinkered and hell-bent on continuing to spread lies and misinformation about Meghan.

      • Erinn says:

        Bella
        “I couldn’t disagree more. ”

        But I agreed with a lot of what you said haha. I think it’s 90+% trying to put her in her place because they don’t deem her worthy – simply because of her skin color. But I do think this is the kind of thing that WOULD generate some talk among normal people. Maybe it’s because I grew up in a small town? And my husbands family is VERY very gossipy and shit-talking about other ‘outsiders’. That’s just MY experience of the kind of things people like to shit-talk. The reason that it got this kind of traction is absolutely because people really enjoy taking swings at Meghan, and that is truly awful.

        Yup, Me – That is true. Most men certainly aren’t jewelry designers – but I do gather he was working with one of the best. I also can’t imagine Harry would have gone out and decided on the ring without ANY idea of what Meghan liked? And maybe she DOES love the old style of the ring, but it just didn’t fit well with the other rings and it WAS a bit wide. I have practically child sized hands so I do understand how it is to fit rings nicely when you don’t have a lot of room.

        HK – “Meghan got flack for it because the mixed race woman should just be glad to be there and should have no opinion whatsoever. Let’s call a thing a thing.” Which I DID mention: “I think that a good deal of the hate is absolutely because they don’t like a biracial princess” I’m just saying that I think there are OTHER reasons besides pure racism. That doesn’t mean that the majority of it IS racist bullshit. I just think there are people out there thinking “oh why didn’t Harry make it a Pave in the first place” kind of comments. But the amount of attention it got from the papers is pretty freaking clear that it’s a race thing.

      • Royalwatcher says:

        Thank you, Bella DuPont!!! Dang, the hoops some people will jump through to ignore the racist elephant in the room is so crazy. And enlightening I suppose.

      • Kylie says:

        All royals alter jewelry at some point. Queen Mary was known for it. QEII had a tiara that was part of her wedding gifts dismantled to make the ugly Burmese Ruby tiara, which is a shame because the tiara she had dismantled was lovely. If Diana was still living she would likely have had a lot of her jewelry redone to keep it from looking dated. Meghan got attacked because she is biracial.

      • Katherine says:

        @erinn. I don’t think anyone would care tbh. I don’t think I’ve ever thought that hard about some other person’s jewelry and what they did to it and what timeline. Maybe the very proud husband gave his wife an engagement ring that didn’t end up working well with a hands on job? Maybe it irritated her skin? Maybe the setting was constantly catching on things. Maybe she just didn’t like it? I mean? It’s kind of crazy to me that there has to be some sort of timeline to make it acceptable to… what… not offend a man’s pride?

      • MsIam says:

        I don’t understand all of this, ” altered after a year!” talk. What is it, a law? I think that Meghan got a smaller band on the engagement ring because she plans to wear all 3 rings (engagement, eternity and the original band) at the same time. It would probably be uncomfortable with the original thicker engagement band. I think she is being very sentimental because she could have just decided to wear the new eternity band alone with her engagement ring and not her original wedding band. Some women do that and then wear the plain band on another finger or on a chain. It is the wedding band that symbolizes the marriage so kudos to her for still wanting to wear that on her ring finger.

    • Kelly says:

      The women of the BRF have been altering and modifying pieces from the Royal Collection for over a century now, since Queen Victoria’s time. She modified pieces that she had received or been given as gifts early in her reign to adapt them for use during her widowhood.

      Queen Mary was probably the most active in terms of making modifications on existing pieces, because she really liked wearing jewelry and putting her own stamp on it, plus adapting pieces she had inherited so they could continue to be worn. A lot of the tiaras currently in the Royal Collection were acquired by her during her lifetime.

      Notable tiaras have been modified to make them easier to wear and to fit with the current times, including the Cambridge Lover’s Knot Tiara. The original setting of that under Queen Mary, with upright pearls on the top, would probably be too much for Kate.

    • BeanieBean says:

      But it’s really not an issue at all. The royals have always altered their jewelry, always. Pick any royal lady past or present, and there will be at least one piece she’s altered. Ingrid Seward is just, well, we know what she is & what she’s doing.

    • Giddy says:

      OMG HOW DARE SHE ALTER HER OWN JEWELRY! Remember the thing that James Carville told Bill Clinton to remember when he ran for President, “it’s the economy, stupid.” Well, just make a substitution and it serves for most times when Meghan is criticized, it’s the racists, stupid!

  3. Kiera says:

    But, but her emails!!! Lock her up!

    Oh shit wrong woman. Still works.

  4. Darla says:

    As someone who goes back to Princess Di days, Kate should not have altered those earrings. It’s a travesty honestly. As for Meghan, I personally find it a bit off to alter a ring your husband had designed for you. So soon anyway. I mean, years later sure. Just my opinion.

    • Megan says:

      It’s possible the earrings were made to be convertible, so they can be worn together and as separate earring. As for Big Blue, I don’t see any difference from when Diana wore it. It was always that ugly.

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        Yeah I never liked big blue. Diana herself said years later that she didn’t like it and wished she had picked something smaller. She only picked it as it was the the biggest one in the catalogue.

      • olive says:

        the earrings originally were designed to separate

      • Maria says:

        Something I’ve wondered – Kate’s sapphire isn’t all that valuable on its own, just from the legacy, but even so, does she ever wear copies when going to visit campers etc?

      • Deedee says:

        She stuck it into the dough with the scouts and went ziplining in the jungle with it on. Remember the engagement interview and William talking about having it in his napsack or whatever on safari and possibly losing “the” ring? I think it was always a copy and the one Diana wore is sitting in the vault somewhere. It’s value is more sentimental and about who wore it. Similar stone and setting would be easy to find and make more than one copy.

      • Sarah says:

        As someone that knows nothing about jewelry, I can see that Big Blue has changed. Diana originally changed it. She added more prongs from the 8-prong setting and then she made the white gold band thicker. William or Kate wanted the band to be thinner and changed it again before the engagement. I’m not sure if Kate also then changed the setting at that time, but Big Blue has had at least 3 lifetimes by my count. So the faux outrage at Meghan is so ridiculous.

        And personally, I like what Kate did with the earrings. She updated them for the time. She made them more delicate. They would be too clunky if she wore the older style of earrings now. I know they could be separated from each other, but I don’t think the bottom sapphire was meant to be the stand alone drop. It looked like it was always meant to be added to the sapphire post. But again I know nothing about jewelry.

    • ByTheSea says:

      How do you know they didn’t decide it together (to match the anniversary set)? Do you really think Meghan was off altering jewelry while she was giving birth? But it would make too much sense to believe that he did it for her, after a joint decision.

      • Jaded says:

        I actually think the ring looks more like a set with the eternity band and the traditional Welsh gold band in between. That’s all I have to say.

    • not so gullible says:

      As for Meghan’s ring, could it be – that with pregnancy – it didn’t fit her any longer… that it was too small or too big?

    • MrsBanjo says:

      There’s far older jewelry belonging to the royals that’s been altered repeatedly. Diana’s earrings are brand new by comparison. Queen Mary altered things constantly. It’s a common practice. It’s not that big of a deal.

    • Original Jenns says:

      The earrings were designed to separate into 4 studs. Kate just made one an option to dangle. The Royals in the past century seem to have regularly torn apart settings to make new ones. And much of the settings are designed for multiple use – a tiara that converts into a necklace and broach is a common theme. So if we’re yelling at Kate and Meghan, we have to scream at the Queen first. I think a slight altering isn’t a big deal for 30 year old earrings, especially if that means they will be worn more instead of being stored in a vault.

    • Feeshalori says:

      Imaginary scenario (or maybe something along this line):

      Meghan: Darling, I love this eternity band!
      Harry: I’m so pleased.
      Meghan: It’s really beautiful, but what if we redesigned the band on the engagement ring to match the eternity band? It would look so much like a set and I can wear all three rings. Would you mind?
      Harry: Darling, whatever makes you happy. I was actually thinking the same thing. Great minds think alike! (chuckle, laughter, kisses, fadeout…)

  5. Seraphina says:

    I agree with Erinn. Throughout history pieces have been altered and broken into smaller pieces or made into grander pieces. It was their way of “recycling” their jewelry. And it’s a great idea. What is nice now is we have pictures to compare and see how they’ve been altered.

    I don’t see the harm in altering jewelry. Granted, I would sit their like Shmeegal from Lord of the Rings with those jewels. But to each their own. And no matter what, Megs will be crucified and made the villain and Katie will be the saint and martyr so that The Cambridge’s are in a positive light. Which is very very sad.

    • ArtHistorian says:

      The faux outrage about royal women who marries into the family altering the jewels they are given really annoys me.

      CP Mary altered the iconic ruby-diamond parure that she wears after wearing it unaltered for a decade. She had the tiara reset to fit her head, which freed up some pieces that she wears as hair ornaments. She also had minor alterations made to some of the other pieces so she could use the parure more diversely. This parure is rather iconic and has immense historical value since it was made for Napoleon’s coronation.

      However, it has a long history of being altered by various royal women. The late Queen Ingrid who wore the parure before Mary also had it altered – in a much more significant manner.

      Queen Mary altered her jewels – as has Queen Elizabeth II.

      And no one has ever griped about it in the press like Ingrid Seward did about Meghan.

      This is honestly such a non-issue for me.

      • Seraphina says:

        @Arthistorian, I really love looking at how the pieces have been altered. It shows creativity and beautiful craftsmanship. And the imagination to create is fascinating. I agree that the fake outrage is crazy.

      • Original Jenns says:

        I love comparing the jewels through the decades. And the historical persons who created this jewelry, that everyone is having the vapors about, all have a history of altering older jewels and buildings in their time (or destroying them and pocketing the money).

      • ArtHistorian says:

        Honestly, despite these alterations, the parure is still intact. There’s a reason that not much historical jewellery (older than the 1800s) featuring large stones and pearls have survived. That is because people completely dismantled existing jewels to have new and more fashionable ones made whilst reusing the gemstones – or the pieces were sold off to raise money.

        Christian IV’s crown is actually missing a few stones because he pawned them off. Indeed, he once pawned the entire crown! Fortunately, it was redeemed back and is now part of the Danish Crown Jewel and we can all enjoy this exquisite piece of Renaissance goldsmithing. It could easily have been lost to the vagaries of history.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        There are literally pieces of royal jewellery that I wish people would have the guts to alter – like the Stuart Tiara, which is a clunky monstrosity. Those huge diamonds could be incorporated into a more harmonious design and the famous Stuart Diamond (a giant rock) ought just to be worn a s a pendant.

        I’d love to see QEII’s Brazilian Aquamarines made into something more elegant instead of the eyesore they currently grace.

      • Freakieness says:

        OMG! Are you the OG Arthistorian? I’m a long time reader, few times commenter and I must tell that I miss the old times when every Royal post in Celebitchy was a history lesson from you, Lak and Sixer.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Hug to ArtHistorian because I’m so happy to see you here again!

        Part of me wants the Luxembourg Empire Tiara altered. I recognize it is historic but it is Too Big. The Lux royals have many lovely tiaras so at least we don’t see that big gun one too often.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        The really big tiaras are usually from the Belle Epoque/Edwardian age when ladies had A LOT of hair. They are tricky to wear with modern hairstyles and they tend to look overly big because they are no longer nestled in a huge pouf of hair.

    • Erinn says:

      I like the altering too – I like that they’re keeping a piece of history, still honoring it’s importance, but incorporating it into something more wearable in most cases. I’d rather see that happening than all these jewels sitting behind glass never being worn. I think as long as records are being kept, and the work is being done by people who can do it justice it really shouldn’t be an issue.

      • A says:

        With the engagement ring specifically, the alteration comes on the heels of Archie’s birth and their first anniversary. It could just have been a way for the two of them to celebrate that. Going forward, Meghan can say that Harry designed the original ring and the setting, and they got it upgraded for their first anniversary. A lot of people do that to celebrate milestones in a marriage, and it sure beats having to buy a brand new ring every time.

  6. BengalCat😻 says:

    I don’t blame Kate for updating those pieces. They look out of style, imo. I was never a fan of Diana’s jewelry, at the same time I can understand why people think it should stay as is.

  7. I own a pair of similar emerald double drops (similar in style, not value) that can be worn both ways, as the singular larger drop or together as the double.
    Though I don’t think we’ve seen them in original form on Kate.

  8. Nev says:

    WORD KAISER.

  9. Julie says:

    The earnings in the photos haven’t been altered in anyway the original design was always two pieces, they’re convertible. The only thing Kate has done to them is make the bottom studs, into drops. The authenticity of the piece hasn’t been altered in anyway. In regards to big blue that hasn’t been altered either, if it had been she would have been eviscerated, people here in the U.K. Have a really morbid obsession bordering on the perverse with Diana. When she was alive at the end of her life the public had turned on her then she died and suddenly they they thought her shit didn’t stink. It’s one of the reasons I never bought that they had her killed even there not that stupid. In regards to Meghan the reason people are annoyed is that it has only been a year and she made such a big deal in the engagement interview about how much she loved it. It would have been better if she just stopped wearing it, or he bought her an entirely different ring as an anniversary present.

    • Bella DuPont says:

      Nobody gives a damn about who converted what Royal jewellery and when (give me other examples of similar outrage over changes to other Royal pieces, if you disagree).

      They care very much in this case because it’s Meghan and this is another opportunity to criticize her, no matter how ludicrous the reasoning.

      • Julie says:

        I can’t give you an example in relation to the British RF other than Sophie and her wedding tiara that she recently changed bare in mind she received it 20 years ago and only changed the setting this year had she changed it at the time she would have been pilloried. Here in Britain it is rarely done if ever and even then the person doing the changing is the Queen herself which is a totally different thing. Meghan has altered a ring she received a year ago, the new setting looks like her first engagement ring that she received from her first marriage shout out to twitter for pointing that out. The point is it makes her look like she’s grasping harry should have just gotten her a new ring and then he wouldn’t have opened her up to even more criticism. Had Kate altered her ring people would have blown a gasket.

      • Nic919 says:

        It’s a lie to say that jewelry is rarely changed in Britain after a ton of examples have been provided. Go read the Royal Order of Splendor site.

      • Bella DuPont says:

        @ Julie

        “Here in Britain, it is rarely if ever done….”

        Newsflash! Here in Britain:

        1) Kate DID alter her engagement ring
        2) Diana regularly altered her jewellery, changing and swapping stones etc
        3) The Queen has altered dozens of priceless pieces of jewellery over the years.
        4) As you said yourself, Sophie just recently altered her wedding tiara.

        So, your initial statement there was either just ignorant or disingenuous. I can’t decide which.

        Key thing is, there was absolutely no outrage whatsoever for all the other alterations. They were reported like any other innocuous piece of royal gossip (which is what this is).

        Finally, as to your suggestions (Stop wearing the ring or Harry buying a new ring)….HA! I bet you would be on this same site criticizing her for those choices as well.

      • Julie says:

        The royal order of splendour sight clearly points out that the royal pieces that have been changed have been done so by the monarch. Whomever so that was at the time, I don’t see what the big deal is, people are entitled to say that it doesn’t look good. I’d side eye anyone that went and changed there ring after a year that was specifically designed for them, especially after being so extra about how amazing the ring supposedly was.

      • Maria says:

        Sophie didn’t change her wedding tiara at the time because the tiara itself was a bunch of anthemions that had belonged to Queen Victoria that Queen Elizabeth II made into a tiara for her.
        Diana altered her pieces.
        Everybody alters jewelry all the time. Not sure why the Queen being the one to do it is a completely different thing to you.
        All Meghan said in the interview was that it was beautiful and special because he designed it, she wasn’t “extra” about it. It was beautiful, and still is. She didn’t change the arrangement of stones or stones themselves. And no, it does not look like her engagement ring from Trevor Engelson.

      • Scal says:

        Eugenie changed her engagement ring after the proposal but before the official announcement. Camilla, Anne, Sophie, Diana, and Kate have all changed pieces after a short amount of time-it’s not just something that’s been done by the queen at the time. The ability to change the jewelry is a feature not a bug.

        Literally all Megan changed was the band. The setting and the stones are still the same. As others have said the side diamonds came from a piece broken up from Diana’s collection. I don’t get all the drama about adding details to a band. It’s not like she swapped out the entire thing.

      • Meganbot2000 says:

        Please if Meghan had gotten an entire new ring she would have been absolutely torn to shreds over it.

      • Original Jenns says:

        Yes. And for all the “Only the Queen is allowed to change anything ever”, Meghan changed a piece of jewelry that belongs to HER. That was purchased and gifted to HER. If she and Harry divorced tomorrow, that ring would go with HER. She didn’t alter anything that belonged to anyone else, or was borrowed to her.

        The style of the ring that he designed is exactly the same. The only change is the band which now allows for a better fit for her to wear all of HER rings. Trust me, stacked rings with stones are very hard to make comfortable. You need the perfect bands and the perfect fit. She wants to be able to wear all 3 rings from Harry. That’s pretty sweet.

    • A says:

      He DID buy her a new ring as an anniversary present–the eternity band that she wears, along with her wedding band and her engagement ring, that’s been altered to match the eternity band.

    • MsIam says:

      @Julie, Harry did get her a new ring, the eternity band. And the sentimental part is from the stones used in the original engagement ring, from Diana and from Botswana. Nothing about that has changed, only the band.

      • Bella DuPont says:

        Notice that Julie didn’t even notice that there had been multiple alterations done to other pieces of jewelry in the past…..

        No problems with those other ones….not enough to even notice……but now that it’s Meghan……”Oooh Heavens! What an abomination!!!!”. That tells you everything you need to know about the motivation and reasoning behind the outcry.

        GTFOH with the double standards.

    • Powermoonchrystal says:

      Why do you care so much? It is really the silliest thing to judge someone about. And the fact you drop a twitter comment about her previous marriage… Honey, you got lost on your way to the daily fail.

  10. skiff says:

    Keep in mind the royals alter jewelry all the time, including Diana and the Queen. Meghan’s ring has two stones from Diana too, I’m sure they were taken from some jewelry somewhere. Unless they just have a vault of diamonds somewhere, and if they do just Wow to that.

    First, Kates change of her engagement ring is really a small alteration which doesn’t really effect the look and some aren’t even sure she did anything. If she did anything I think it was for comfort to wear the ring, as it looks like it may have popped out more. Now Meghan’s change to her not really historic ring was a bit more, but still minor. It may have been done partially for comfort too, and to me it was only interesting cause Harry proudly explained how he designed the ring and they have only been married for a little while. I think most of the articles were it’s interesting and I wonder how it was decided to be changed. The few crazy articles about how Meghan the diva was destroying history with changing the ring were silly, and unfortunately par for the course with their gossip. In this case though most articles were like she changed it and why? I think we are better off ignoring the few crap article, when they weren’t really the main coverage of the story. Now Kate’s change of the earrings is pretty dramatic, and I actually like the change personally, although someone above said they were convertible and able to be this way so we don’t know. It’s possible as someone said it broke as they seemed heavy, and it’s also possible the other stone will be used in another piece of jewelry for someone else, maybe Meghan or Charlotte. One reason you might not hear so much about this is also because she doesn’t wear them very often. It’s not like an engagement ring. Not sure how harping on this with Kate helps Meghan’s coverage get better. I fear it just highlights it, and next time Meghan change’s something you will hear more cause it has legs in media terms. Also, I agree with the poster above any change to Diana jewelry will be greatly scrutinized for both women.

    • Exhausted says:

      Maybe, just maybe, Harry did it for her. But shitting on Meghan is way more fun. We will do that until the Cambridge’s decide to liven up.

      • skiff says:

        This response always cracks me up a bit. Of course he did it for her? I don’t think Harry would just willy nilly change Meghan’s engagement ring without her wanting it changed. I’m also pretty sure Meghan wouldn’t just change the engagement ring he designed without talking to Harry first. My gossip question, which isn’t shitting on Meghan, is how did this come up. It’s just pure gossip. You know you want to alter something your husband gave you. No I don’t have a right to know, and realize I probably won’t know either, but I still find it good gossip, not the racist crap we have been getting. I personally like all the alterations, especially the pave band. Although I’d be concerned with the weight of the other stones it might break being so thin.

        One thing I’m pretty sure about too is I think neither Kate nor Meghan would change any of the “Diana” pieces of jewelry they received without talking to their husband’s first. It’s their dead mother’s jewelry, it could have some sentimental value they don’t know.

      • A says:

        “How did this come up?” I mean? Any number of normal and perfectly ordinary ways? Like maybe when Harry decided to get an eternity band, asked for Meghan’s opinion, and she went, “Hmmm, I like the notion dear boy, but I don’t know how it will work out when it’s all stacked…” And he went to the jeweler to voice his concerns, and the jeweler, noting the opportunity for 2x the sale, brightly went, “Well hey, maybe you can slim down the band on the engagement ring AND make it a ring of diamonds so that it stacks nicely and matches with the eternity band.” And Harry went, “That’s a swell idea, let’s get on that.” End scene, close curtain.

        I honestly find this whole conversation about, “oOoH, wHaT wOuLd ThE hUsBaNd ThInK???” re altering the ring so peculiar and archaic, lol. Yeah, it makes for good gossip, but still. In my very limited experience, if your fiance cares enough to custom design a ring for you, they likely don’t mind if you alter it. It’s usually when someone acquires an already made ring that they get up in arms if you change something, even if it’s just to get it resized for your finger. But that’s just my experience.

    • windyriver says:

      That’s a very interesting point about the two stones from Diana. I wondered at the time where they came from, assumed from some other not particularly significant jewelry, but apparently wasn’t an issue for his family for him to use them.

      IMO, Harry’s pride about designing the ring came from the fact he sourced the stone from Botswana, and included two diamonds from his mom. He believed yellow gold was Meghan’s favorite, but apart from that, I doubt he was particularly emotionally invested in the band. It was the jewels that he cared about. Maybe he thought the gold band would also go with the gold wedding ring. But the eternity band changes things.

      For all we know, the jeweler who made the eternity band suggested the new pave band for the ring. I’m not a fan, because to me the new band looks too thin for size of the stones. But it’s not my ring, I don’t know how it all feels on her finger, and overall, not my business.

      • skiff says:

        Diana’s jewelry is interesting as her personal collection was supposed to be split in half between Harry and William. She did have something in her will about giving it to their significant others. I wonder who decides who gets what. I don’t think Diana specified pieces. I know William asked Harry if he could have Diana’s engagement ring for Kate and Harry agreed. I remember that story at the time. Also, Diana had access to family pieces like the Spencer tiara which her niece wore at her wedding. Wouldn’t it be cool if Charlotte, being the only Spencer related girl in the royal family wore that tiara to something. I’m sure her great uncle would let her, and I think that would be nice.

      • Deedee says:

        The Spencer tiara stays with the Spencers.

      • olive says:

        @skiff the Spencer tiara is reserved for Spencer women only. This came up when everyone was hoping Meghan would wear it at her wedding. She’s related to the Spencers, but Charlotte is a Windsor, she is not a Spencer.

  11. ew says:

    The alterations really are arbitrary. Why do these people have all of this incredibly expensive jewelry in the first place? How does this improve the lives of the British public?

    And, yes I really don’t get the royals and Kourtney Kardashian probably “works” more than any royal besides the Queen herself, but mocking skin is not body-positive in the slightest so let’s leave it out.

  12. Bella DuPont says:

    I don’t think all criticism of Meghan is as a result of racism actually, there’s a small %age that’s reasonable and fair. I would put that figure at about 5%.

    Of the 95% that’s unreasonable, I’ll hazard a guess that *at least* 75% of that is a combination of Racism + Classism.

    The rest are just jealous people and trolls.

  13. Enn says:

    We’re only giving credence to Seward here by comparing the two. Which…no one should do.

  14. Esme says:

    Diana wore big jewelery with ease. Camilla wears big jewelery with ease. Kate and Meg don’t have the same careless vibe about big jewelry… is it a generational thing? Or a “to the manner born” thing?

    I like the earrings better in their original setting. And that chocker is to die for!

    • Maria says:

      I thought Meghan’s tiara looked gorgeous, and although I’m less of a fan of Kate, she wears the Queen Mary Lover’s Knot Tiara very well. I also enjoyed seeing the necklace from Princess Alexandra of Denmark’s engagement parure on Kate.

    • Feeshalori says:

      Of all Diana’s jewelry, l am eagerly anticipating the reappearance of that sapphire and pearl choker. And speaking of jewelry alterations, that sapphire was originally a brooch given to Diana as a wedding gift by the Queen Mother. Diana supposedly didn’t care for brooches and had it redesigned into that fabulous choker. And, voila, a stunning piece was created. And no outrage over any desecration of historic jewelry either.

    • Deedee says:

      Remember when Diana wore emeralds and diamonds as a band across her forehead? She could wear just about anything.

    • (TheOG)@Jan90067 says:

      Could be generational. I like big bling, but not like that! lol. My mom left me a pavé and gold knuckle-buster that is just not my taste, and I will most likely break it up into another piece or two. But my mom LOVED it.

  15. MV says:

    Duplicate

  16. Ksweet says:

    I think maybe Meghan changed the band to make it slimmer so she could wear the other ring(s) he gave her to put with it. Stacking rings can be uncomfortable if they’re too thick.

    • Robinda says:

      I actually think that comfort is the entire story behind the change. No drama, it just didn’t sit comfortably.

    • Original Jenns says:

      That’s what I said! I have a stacked rings set, and I have to swivel the stones to make them fit. A slimmer band helps the other ring sit under the stone without gaps and with more comfort. Great minds here :)

    • Tourmaline says:

      This makes a lot of sense. She went from wearing one ring on that finger, the engagement ring. Now a year and a half later she is wearing THREE rings on that one finger – engagement ring, wedding ring, eternity ring.

      Lots of people would alter bands or settings to make that all fit comfortably as a SET of rings worn very often – if not daily.

      You also have to take into account that three bands together on a finger can rub or strike each other in such a way to wear down or damage the bands or even the stones on the rings. Another reason to consider modifying them so that the rings can all, shall we say, ‘co-exist’ peacefully! From a comfort, care, and aesthetic sense.

  17. Jan says:

    Ingrid Seward needs to STFU IMHO! Her dislike of Meghan is well documented. I don’t know if it’s racism or classism but this is absolutely ridiculous when the royals have altered jewelry for thousands of years. Period. Besides, who died and made Ingrid Queen? Oh wait, nope Liz is still here, Bless her!

  18. Lina says:

    I know for me I think it’s a little rude to change a ring your husband specifically designed for you. I would even think that if a non royal person did that.

    • skiff says:

      100% this, and this was where I thought the story was going. Then some of it went a bit crazy to you can’t change even tangentially historic jewelry. I’m sorry I still want to speculate how this went down. It’s like your husband gives you what he thinks is the best gift, and you don’t really like it, but he’s so excited. What do you do?

    • Harryg says:

      I agree. And I don’t get the whole altering thing – one would think they have enough jewelry to play with to find something suitable to wear for every occasion.

    • Maria says:

      All she did was change the band. For all we know the original band had to be cut off from pregnancy swelling. She didn’t change the stones or the arrangement.
      Harry chose yellow gold and the diamonds, but I don’t think he put much thought into the thickness of the band, which was a little heavier than Meghan’s normal style.

      • skiff says:

        This is true, and show me how many men even know that there are different sizes of bands on rings. I’m guessing they don’t put much thought into that part, and it was what the jeweler suggested. Still I want to know how it went down to change it. There are all sorts of possibilities.

    • Melissa says:

      I think it’s silly to expect someone to feel and behave as you do. I think we are all way too invested in other people’s business. No one should have to explain or feel bad about altering something that belongs to them.

    • HK9 says:

      Actually, I’ve always told my male friends not to propose with a ring unless the fiancee has already pointed out her favourite engagement ring. Why, because if you don’t you’re going to have to change it. And quite frankly, when you design an engagement ring, the person who’s wearing it should be there because what looks good in a store may not look/feel good on her hand, especially when you add the band. You’re married, and you should be able to talk about these things and if you can’t, well….

      • LadyT says:

        My son bought a fabulous loose diamond and had it set in a plain Tiffany band for the proposal in July. Can’t wait! From there she can set it however she chooses and they’ll pick wedding bands together.

      • A says:

        Exactly! It’s an engagement ring, not a piece of jewelry that you only wear every once in a while. The person who’s wearing it has to wear it and look at it every single day of their life. Frankly, expecting them to do so with a ring that’s either not comfortable for them, or is just plain not suited to their tastes, just because you bought it/designed it/whatever, is what’s rude to me.

      • HK9 says:

        @LadyT-Tiffany is one of my favourite jewelers so you’ve raised a man with great taste!!

    • Emeraldeyes says:

      Better that then wearing it once (well, twice) and hiding it away forever, as Sophie did with the wedding necklace Ed designed for her.

      Look, if she was uncomfortable, didn’t like or whatever reason she had, she is more than entitled to change her own personal jewelry. I doubt she did it without consulting her husband, but even if she didn’t it’s hardly “rude”

      • Robinda says:

        Just went and googled the necklace. That’s just awful; I can’t really imagine another event where she could wear it even if she wanted to.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Prince Philip is good at jewelry design (engagement ring, Queen’s wedding bracelet). He’s the only royal man I can think of who is good at it.

    • kerwood says:

      And you’re positive that Meghan did it? You know for a fact that HARRY didn’t suggest she change the ring because he wanted to give her another one for their anniversary? How?

      IF Meghan is the one that changed the setting, let’s not forget 1) It’s her ring; 2) Harry is HER husband; 3) The ring isn’t part of any ‘royal’ collection and has no ‘history’ behind it. If Meghan decided to change the ring, that’s between HER and HER HUSBAND.

      If people are willing to excuse away Kate changing jewelry that actually does have SOME historical importance, why is it ANYBODY’S business that Meghan changed a ring that is less than a year old and was given by Prince Harry, the least important member of the Royal Family in its entire history. Oh, that’s right, Meghan’s Black.

  19. violet says:

    I can’t believe the tabloids are wringing several days worth of oxygen on this. They must be getting pretty desperate in the slow summer months. I, mean, really, wtf cares?! Meghan got a new band for her engagement ring, OK, it was only a year old but if Harry doesn’t care, why should anyone else I’m sure she asked him first. Kate altered a pair of Diana’s earrings (frankly, I like them better this way, less fussy, they’re more adaptable to daytime wear) amongst many other items in her extensive cache . . . what is the point in all this? Caroline Kennedy just put her mother’s beautiful legendary estate at Martha’s Vineyard up for sale (don’t rush to call your realtor, folks, the price is prohibitive) saying in response to people bawling about the same thing, history, “It’s time to create our own memories,” or something like that.

    Honestly, I feel like writing to the tabloids with BORING! written in huge letters, nothing else.

  20. Sam says:

    They only have an issue cos its Meghan.The way some are acting,you’d think the ring was completely different when its only the band that has changed.Also the person immediately blamed is Meghan,might have been Harry who decided it to match with the new ring or they decided together.

  21. asdfa says:

    —- Oh wait you mean the whole point of the conversation was to otherize a biracial woman and berate her for having nice things

    DING DING DING DING DING

    ugh

    also, damn, Kate really DOES love her buttons doesn’t she?

  22. Marjorie says:

    Ok, Queen Victoria and her minions stole the 150+ carat Kohinoor diamond from India in 1852. It went on display to the public but failed to amaze people, so hubby Prince Albert had it cut to make it shinier. Now it’s in the crown. Did you not know that, Ingrid Seward, royal expert?

  23. Emeraldeyes says:

    They all do it. The Queen has done it on well known tiaras. The whole brouhaha is complete nonsense from beginning to end.

  24. khaveman says:

    All she did was have the bottom drop fashioned with a diamond accent. I’m sure she’ll use the top part as studs. Makes sense, and now they will be seen more because they are more “everyday”. I think it’s smart.

  25. dawnchild says:

    Why do all her close-ups look like stock photos of “woman at meeting looking engaged” or “woman explaining something”?
    Maybe because she has a certain type of pleasant, nondescript face that sells insurance or baking goods or cleaning products….she feels it important to emote with eyebrows and mouth constantly. Or maybe they only publish those pictures, I don’t know…

  26. A says:

    Even if the crux of the matter is the fact that Meghan dared to alter the ring that her husband painstakingly designed for her (lol)…so what? We don’t know the details of the situation here, we don’t know how Harry feels about it. Any design, as great as it is or as thoughtful as it could have been, can stand some amount of alteration or improvements based on the wearer’s personal preference. And if Harry cares about Meghan like I’m sure he does, I doubt he’s all that cut up about it and crying himself to sleep at night about how this awful wench of a woman dumped all of his hard work in the garbage with nary a thought.

    A lot of this seems to boil down to the fact that it’s somehow unusual(?) for men to design engagement rings, so much so that people are straight up willing to wear some sh-tty designs if need be, just to avoid potentially hurting someone’s feelings. Personally, I don’t understand how it’s rude or ungrateful to be honest about your preferences, especially with your significant other, but that’s just me. I find that it’s just better to tell someone that hey, maybe something they made with you in mind isn’t particularly working out for you for whatever reason, as opposed to wearing it once or twice while smiling painfully in the process, stashing it away in some closet somewhere, and then awkwardly making up excuses as to why you don’t wear it anymore.

    • Tourmaline says:

      YES!
      It seems pretty retrogressive to say that if you end up being given an engagement ring that doesn’t work for you/isn’t what you want/doesn’t fit or look right to you or work with your wedding band or other rings, your options are to 1) hide it and go without an engagement ring 2) suck it up and wear it, likely daily, on your body, in front of your eyes every day, for a period of time up to and possibly past your death, because you mustn’t risk upsetting your MAAAAAN who ‘designed’ it.

      I like this fantasy of Harry just burning up inside how DARE she do this?!?!? hahahaahahaha

  27. Guest says:

    My favorite comments are “omg how could she do that to harry.” Looking at you ladies of royaldish.

    • (TheOG)@Jan90067 says:

      Royal Dish is a cesspool of racism and snobbery. Posters seem to take an inordinate amount of glee bashing Meghan in particular. It seems I read (here?) that the H&M thread was closed up due to that? I went there once or twice…and I’ve not gone back. It’s CRAZY in there!

    • Gia says:

      Well, to tell the truth it is a bit of a hit to Harry. It was a present and by changing it you basically say that the giver’s gift isn’t really to your liking. Not nice.
      Personally I don’t like the changes she made to that ring. Before it had a nice contrast metal-diamond which was simply nice and interesting. Now it is all blingy. Too many diamonds can look blingy especially when so small.

      • Katherine says:

        To tell the truth??? You don’t know the truth! Maybe HE had the brilliant idea to alter it once he had the eternity band. I’m really sort of shocked at the comments here that seem to be all about not offending a man’s pride over an engagement ring meant for a woman. It all has a really gross property and ownership vibe. A true man (which I believe Harry is) would not be that insecure and would want his spouse to adore her ring as its ultimately not him wearing it.

  28. Mego says:

    Ingrid Seward threw shade because Meghan’s alleged ring alteration got her racist knickers in a twist period end of story. There is no “history” to the ring and saying so was very stupid. I have no respect for this idiot.

    Kate’s free to alter the crap out her jewellery without comment because she’s the white princess.

  29. Snap Happy says:

    I saw a post on Instagram yesterday where someone posted all the homes of the royals, especially the queen’s children’s home. Frogmore Cottage looked like a garage compared to these massive estates. And Harry is above all of them (except Charles of course) in the line of succession and so is Archie. All arguments or cost aside, Harry and Meghan got the “dumpiest” home. They are really coming for her for having the audacity of being loved by a prince.

    • aquarius64 says:

      This. As a WOC Meghan should only be the sidepiece of a royal not a wife. Her son is Harry’s legitimate son, the future Duke of Sussex and a successor to the throne. There’s African American blood coursing in the House of window and people are losing it.

    • Gia says:

      Kensington Palace is nice. It is good enough for Will and Kate and Beatrice and Eugenie and some other Royals. Except that Meghan didn’t want to live there. Meghan and Harry were offered some appartments there but they didn’t want to live there. So they got Frogmore Cottage which is a >> cottage <<. They did chose that one over Kensington.
      Personally I would have chosen Kensington Palace. Bea and Eugenie are hardly ever there and Will and Kate are busy as are the other Royals. That thing is big enough to not meet the others and it is SAFE SAFE SAFE. Now Frogmore cottage is …. old and unsafe and had to undergo major renovations and I bet security is adding extra to the Royal security bill.

      • Harla says:

        How do you that Meghan didn’t want to live there Gia? Perhaps Harry didn’t want to live there. Also, KP is quite the fishbowl with no really private, secluded areas, I believe the Cambridges are the only ones who have a private, walled garden. Also, Edward, Andrew, Anne and Charles don’t all live together at St. James’, why do Harry and William have to live in the same place?

      • Sparky says:

        Yeah but… Will and Kate lived full time at Anmer Hall in Norfolk and spent buckets of money renovating it before moving back to KP. Eugenie didn’t move in until after her marriage and I’m fairly certain that Beatrice does not live there. And how do you know where Meghan wanted to live? And Harry had no input?

        Also, with respect to criticism re Meghan— I believe that it is about class and race but also about her being American. It’s the trifecta — a biracial, non-aristocratic American. Oh the horror!!!

      • Olenna says:

        Another stalker thinking for Meghan and Harry. How tiresome.

      • Gia says:

        Harry and Meghan did chose Frogmore Cottage. Read it up it was in the news.
        Kate had some say as well. Kate did chose a bigger appartment in Kensington Palace.

    • Moose says:

      Snaphappy, Yes i saw the same on SussexSquad twitter page, interesting, couldn’t believe the size of Ed & Sophie’s place wowzers!

  30. Gia says:

    So basically Meghan made her ring more diamondy blingy? Three diamonds not enough?
    Kate hasn’t “changed” the earrings because each of those 2-piece earrings could be separated if you want to wear just one of them. Such is the nature of expensive jewelry.
    Kate was acutally quite thrifty because the 2-piece version isn’t suitable for day engagements. One-piece earring for day engagements and 2-piece earrings for evening ball gown events.
    And I think Kate is wearing the smaller circular upper piece for day engagements because the bigger bottom piece is slightly drop-shaped or oval. She is developing style and gets what to wear at what time of day. Nice.
    See here the 2-piece version on Diana:

    https://parade.com/53559/roisinkelly/see-previously-unpublished-pictures-of-diana-dancing-with-tom-selleck-and-clint-eastwood/

    • Nic919 says:

      Kate is the opposite of thrifty. She has about thirty different pairs of Kiki earrings that are at least $2000 each and they all look about the same. And since she’s never had a job she’s never paid for jewelry with her own money unlike Meghan. So it’s utter tripe

      They can both change up jewelry and it’s not the end of the world.

      • HayaR says:

        Haha! Why is utter tripe? Envious much? Guess what? I’ve never paid for my jewellery either, and I’ve never worked to “put food on the table, pay bills”, you seem jealous because Kate never had to struggle. That’s how the world works – you will never be happy in life if you’re always seething over someone else’s good fortune.

  31. Mrs.Krabapple says:

    Do people know that even the State Crown gets altered? (They made it look more feminine for Queen Elizabeth). And the Crown doesn’t even “belong” to Elizabeth in the same way that Meghan’s ring belongs to her, as her personal property. I can’t believe what people will stoop to just to criticize Meghan.

    • N says:

      How haven’t they (rabid royal reporters) lost their shit over the crown having a ping pong ball on the top?!

  32. L Robb says:

    Diana changed the setting on the blue sapphire engagement ring from the original six prongs at her engagement announcement to more, like 8. The stories about Meghan are obvious harassment.

    UK tabloids and associated reporters are showing their desperation. They cannot go a day without headlining their front pages with stories about a silent, absent royal on maternity leave, while constantly complaining she is attention seeking. Here’s a clue: stop making up drama and writing stupid stories about her. Neither she nor Harry need your coverage. Write about something else you think is so worthy of the front pages.

  33. amilou says:

    I think her complexion looks fine and healthy and age-appropriate. I’d rather see a hundred faces like hers than one face with with pancake makeup and/or an overly ‘toxed forehead.

  34. Citresse says:

    We can’t all live in the past. Life goes on. The earrings look pretty on Kate.

  35. Jenn says:

    Someone stole my mom’s diamond engagement ring — presumably straight off her finger — during her final hospital visit just before she passed away. I was devastated about it for a long time. But I actually felt a lot better when I recently read about the history of engagement rings: Diamonds, which are not actually that rare, inadvertently became TOO popular and successful, so the market became flooded with secondhand diamonds, diminishing their value. The “diamonds are forever” slogan came about as part of a concerted effort to discourage jewelry’s secondhand market.

    The untimely death of Princess Di was a terrible tragedy, and I’ve seen enough Franklin Mint ads to know people are obsessed with royal jewelry. But these “priceless gemstones” are, ultimately, rocks someone managed to polish and sell. By all means, have your jewels reset!!!!!!

  36. Nic919 says:

    Omid Scobie confirmed that the eternity ring and the refitting of the engagement ring was Harry’s idea. Having quite a chuckle at all the people who were “worried” about how this looked.

  37. Smices says:

    Yep after all that hullabaloo and snotty judgement. it turns out Harry was the one who changed the ring. Hilarious.

  38. KEEPINGITREAL says:

    Hi to all from NZ. Thought I could shed light on Meghan’s ring debacle that is quite simply fed by ill-informed media and royal reporters (Ingrid Seward – the so called royal family expert)…yeah right! Harry actually commissioned the change to her engagement ring, not Meghan and when you read the article you’ll know why. I would also go so far as to say the very experienced and knowledgeable jeweller who he commissioned for her gorgeous eternity ring assisted in providing Harry with suggestions for the engagement ring. Makes sense to me. I for one always knew in my heart that she wouldn’t just go and change anything on that ring without an exceptional reason. She loves her husband and truely respects the gifts he gives her. Link to article is at the end of my post.

    There’s also the news on her latest outing (yesterday pacific time) with Harry to a baseball game which was organised to promote the Invictus Games. She looks stunning, happy (as always) and as much in love as ever before. Happy reading!

    Oh. Don’t worry too much about the reno debacle either. Meghan and Harry do more than there share in giving back six-fold to the British taxpayers estimated 3 million spent on their home. We have all heard that saying, “You have to spend money to make money.” Again much is fuelled by the media. It get’s clicks and generates income for them.

    As for Kate. I’m not a hater! I do however think she needs a professional image consultant to assist her. She needs to learn the skills required to communicate effectively with all members of the public, i.e. adults and not just children. I am talking meaningful conversations and being more effective with her charities. The media always seem to highlight her with children. Of course, this is to score points and show her to be so so caring. Kate needs to remember that “mental illness” for instance, has no age preference. Meghan however is the complete package. So intelligent and very genuine. Super hard worker.

    For latest article re ring visit http://www.harpersbizarre.com and click on CELEBRITY and then CELEBRITY NEWS.

    We obviously get more media articles available to us here about the royals but our country is a Realm of the Commenwealth. Maybe that’s why. ☺💖

  39. Diamond Rottweiler says:

    Possibly an unpopular opinion, but I think the original version of the sapphire earrings is much more balanced, though indeed much more MAJOR. Even with the single drop they’re too heavy and the setting is too formal to look appropriate as a dangling earring. I think “important jewels” benefit from that formality. Kinda hope that approach comes back as I’m getting tired of major gems being set like a teenager’s jewelry. I like grown ass woman settings. Looking fresh to me again. But yes, also, the pearl clutching about Meghan doing basically *anything* is racist. That seems pretty apparent.

  40. LadyT says:

    You’re right! It’s clearly different sapphires in the pictures above and in Vogue.

  41. Brandy Alexander says:

    Interesting. Do you think she switched out the stones or had a “copy” of the earrings made?

  42. LadyT says:

    They’re not the same earrings on Diana in Vogue and on Catherine above. Nothing’s altered- they’re just not the same earrings. No telling how many sapphire earrings belong to the royal family or how they been altered and I couldn’t care less. But the two sets pictured in this article are not the even the same pair.

  43. Eyfalia says:

    Apparently there are quite a few people who care about what she allegedly did to the ring. And most of these people do not like Meghan. And YES it is racism.