It’s interesting that Tatler’s “Catherine the Great” cover story hasn’t given us MORE headlines. If the Duchess of Sussex had pulled even a fraction of what Duchess Kate tried to pull, it would have been a weeks-long drama. Piers Morgan would have written a half dozen columns about it. Katie Nicholl would have given five exclusive interviews about it. Dan Wootton would have devoted a dozen hit-pieces about it. But after Tatler clapped back about what the Cambridges knew about the piece and everything effectively blew up in Kate’s face, it’s been quiet. Sure, Richard Kay wrote that “rebuttal,” but he didn’t even rebut all that much. I have to wonder if the Sunday papers in the UK will be full of various analysis pieces on the drama. But maybe not.
In the absence of good royal journalism, people like the Daily Mail’s Jan Moir are just focusing on the story Kate actually wanted out there, which is that “Meghan made Kate cry” because “Meghan defied the Queen” by saying that the little children-bridesmaids didn’t have to wear tights on a warm day for Meghan’s wedding. Remember that when the story originally came out, it was simply that “Meghan made Kate cry” and that was what was important to people – Kate’s salty white tears at having to deal in any way with a gauche black American. Now Jan Moir claims that Kate was (you guessed it) quite right to make the tights into such a big f–king deal:
Can it be true that the beautiful wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, which unfurled before a global TV audience of many millions at home and abroad, took place without anyone realising that a terrible hosiery-based solecism had been committed? Brace yourselves for a shock, but — if high society bible Tatler is to be believed — this is indeed the case.
The six tiny flower girls, including Princess Charlotte, looked lovely in their highwaisted silk dresses with puffed sleeves — but they were not wearing tights. Let me repeat. They frolicked in front of HM The Queen with their bare little leggies on show, which apparently is not acceptable at court.
I know. It was 2018, not 1820, but still. It is now claimed that it is was these tights — or lack thereof — that originally caused the rift between the soon to-be Duchess of Sussex (Californian, let it all hang out, anti-tights) and the Duchess of Cambridge ( Home Counties, stickler, pro-tights protocol). Does it explain the froideur that persists today? It is certainly true that an ocean of misunderstanding opened up between them.
I had no idea if this wardrobe stipulation carried any merit, until a flick back through royal weddings and quasi-royal weddings (Pippa) over the past few decades revealed that in every single one, the little girls in the bridal party are all wearing tights, summer or not. So too all those little pageboys, frequently got up like extras in Mutiny On The Bounty or a toddler production of Les Mis, the poor wee things.
I had to ask my poshest friend Georgina, no stranger to society weddings herself, for clarification. Did she notice the Sussex no-tights tangle? Of course she did.
‘I remember at the time thinking how ghastly the shoes and bare legs were — it looked very Eurotrashy,’ she poshly bellowed down the line. Did it? ‘Oh yah. I mean, leather shoes with no socks or tights? It’s not on, Jan. Appalling. Bare legs are fine on flower girls wearing canvas or satin ballet shoes — but even then possibly not at a royal wedding, where a higher degree of formality is expected.’ One imagines this was a refinement that had escaped Meghan but not Kate.
…Reports say Steely Kate was reduced to tears, but I don’t believe it. She is made of much tougher stuff than 20 denier. It would take a lot more than tightsgate to ladder her composure. Yet even for Kate, weddings are a trial.
Basically, Moir is arguing that it’s completely and totally reasonable for Kate and Meghan’s blood feud to be ignited because of children’s tights, but that Kate is entirely too reasonable and Future-Queeny to cry about it. Except that’s the crux of the story, that’s what we’ve been told for the past year and a half: that Meghan is an absolute monster because SHE MADE KATE CRY. That Kate’s precious white tears were the signal that Meghan is an awful person. Now we learn that the whole thing was about a pair of damn tights and Kate cried about THAT? Besides… with all of the shady sh-t that’s in that Tatler article, I can’t believe that the “tights story” is the one getting all the attention. It has to be on purpose.
At least I get to reuse these photos of Poor Kate wearing white to Meghan’s wedding again. Here’s another royal mystery: did Kate wear pantyhose under her white McQueen coatdress at the Sussexes’ wedding? In most photos, it doesn’t look like she did. *cough*
Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.