Duchess Meghan’s wedding-tiara drama was between Harry & Angela Kelly

Royal wedding

In 2018, Prince Harry and then-Meghan Markle married in what was then a whirlwind of drama, mostly because of Thomas Markle’s shenanigans. Months after the wedding, various stories “came out” about “what really happened” behind the scenes around the wedding. That fall was when we first heard the infamous “Meghan made Kate cry” story, and we also heard the stupid “Meghan personally demanded a tiara from the Queen” story. Neither story made much sense to me because both stories were severely light on details and context. The point of both stories was to create a narrative of Meghan as “difficult” or “diva-esque” or “an unhinged American.”

The backstory is simple enough: every royal bride gets offered a tiara from the Queen. It’s that simple. Either the Queen – through her people – will offer a royal bride a choice, or the Queen will make the decision about which tiara she’ll lend out. The Meghan-tiara story was, again, light on details and context, but it was something about how “the Queen offered Meghan one tiara, and Meghan DEMANDED a different one.” And then the Queen told Harry that his bride was horrid or something. Raise your hand if you think Meghan would march into Buckingham Palace and demand the Queen give her a different tiara. Anyway, People Magazine’s excerpt from Finding Freedom reveals that the beef was actually between Prince Harry and the Queen’s dresser, Angela Kelly.

Meghan Markle glittered in the Queen Mary tiara on her wedding day — with the blessing of her grandmother-in-law, Queen Elizabeth. In Finding Freedom: Harry and Meghan and the Making of a Modern Royal Family, veteran royal journalists Omid Scobie and Carolyn Durand detail the events leading up to Meghan’s 2018 wedding to Prince Harry. The book, which features exclusive interviews with the couple’s friends, is excerpted in this week’s PEOPLE cover story.

Among the behind-the-scenes insights in the book is Harry’s frustration in dealing with the Queen’s longtime dresser, Angela Kelly. Scobie and Durand write that Harry felt Kelly was dragging her feet in helping Meghan obtain access to her chosen tiara for a hair trial in advance of the big day on May 19, 2018.

Several U.K. tabloids had previously reported that the Queen, 94, had rejected Meghan’s first choice of tiara. Finding Freedom reports that in fact, there were no disagreements between Meghan and the Queen about her chosen tiara. Rather, the conflict existed between Harry and Kelly. (The hair trial, the book reports, ultimately went forward with no hesitation from the Queen.)

[From People]

This makes sense to me, especially because royal brides would obviously want to get advance access to whatever tiara they’re going to be given so they can see which hairstyle looks best (thus, “the hair trial”). It also makes sense that Angela Kelly is a passive-aggressive bish who would drag her feet on lending out tiaras.

As I was looking through our archives for this story, I was reminded of this suspicious and nasty story in 2019 about the Queen “cutting off Meghan’s access” to the Royal Collection jewelry, per William’s request. Now I’m wondering if Angela Kelly was behind that too.

PS… Since Finding Freedom seems to be full of “answers” to all of the royal wedding mysteries, I wonder if the book will answer the question of whether the Duchess of Cambridge truly wore off-white to Meghan and Harry’s wedding. *walks away laughing*

SWITZERLAND-DAVOS-WEF-U.S.-BIDEN

Royal baby

Royal wedding

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid and WENN.

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

200 Responses to “Duchess Meghan’s wedding-tiara drama was between Harry & Angela Kelly”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Noki says:

    What was the reason for cutting Meghan off from the royal collection,was it ever confirmed ?That was very telling and quite cruel.

    • ABritGuest says:

      Apparently Angela Kelly is known as AK7 because of her tough manner. And that story of fighting a love rival in the palace is something. She’s meant to be as indispensable to the Queen as Michael Fawcett was to Charles.

      I bet the Queen has a few tough gatekeepers like her who use her trust for influence in the RH.

      I always thought it was telling that Harry went to a tiara selection meeting with Meghan when by his words on the wedding exhibition audio he wasn’t meant to be there. Sounds like people were being dismissive of Meghan so the blood royal had to come along to ensure staff respected her wishes.

      My guess is AK7 is behind that alleged quote about serving the Queen& country not a cable actress.

      that story about palace restricting access to Crown Jewels (was denied) may have come from her OR after tiara drama the Sussexes didn’t want to deal with her and borrowed those earrings when they were on Oceana tour.

      • Hope says:

        The Queen seems to let her favorites run amok while she looks the other way. Terrible management behavior. Angela Kelly sounds so much like that toxic coworker who can ruin the atmosphere of an entire workplace. People are actually leaving rather than deal with her.

        So on one side we have Meghan who has no negative coworker stories and on the other side we have people like Angela Kelly who has a history of being trashy and difficult. Yet people want to think Meghan was the problem? Telling on themselves.

      • Va Va Kaboom says:

        All these stories really put into stark light that Queen Elizabeth is a right Royal b*tch. Sorry, so not sorry. I don’t understand how people either refuse to admit her role or pretend it’s limited to her simply “looking away” or being willfully ignorant of her problematic “favorites”. That woman is scepter deep in all this bs, as always.

        Angela Kelly, like all of QE’s long-standing staff, friends and family, spend years getting on her good side and learning to behave and serve QE in the exact manner she demands. There is no way Kelly acted like that without the Queen’s tacit approval at the very least.

        And its not like this stuff is rare. We are the company we keep and QE has spent 9 decades keeping company with a ton of entitled, bigoted, petty, truly terrible people. She’s befriended them, spent holidays with them, worked with and employed them, married them and has given birth to them. Only ever wavering in her support or the delight of their company when their misdeeds are so egregious they risk undermining the Monarchy. So many A$$holes flock to her side because she’s their Queen literally and metaphorically.

        PS… sorry for the rant, but with the world tearing itself apart right now I have no patience for these petty people playing their vicious little games. Its infuriating that so many refuse to see the truth. I get that her position affords her a lot of respect and consideration from some of the public.

        But seriously, all she has ever done to earn one of the most vaunted positions in human history was dropping out of her mother’s cervix first. That is literally her only qualification for her job. Why people think that’s earned her a century’s worth of the benefit of doubt and excuses while she travels around her castles, being a passive-aggressive bully in priceless diamonds I’ll never understand.

      • Mary says:

        @ Va Va, 👋👋👋👋👋👋

      • Hope says:

        @Va Va, True, if Angela Kelly thought it would bother the Queen to be terrible to Meghan, she would have stopped. Something seems to have mattered because when the Queen sat in on the appointment, both Meghan and Harry seemed happy but then Angela planted a story in the Times and in a separate incident got a maid fired, and was involved with physical fights with other staff members and the Queen has still retained her service and rewarded her.

        I think it’s the Queen’s famous lifelong problem with empathy and her coldness when it comes to her comforts and routine. She is very likely a selfish, self-absorbed person when it comes to her own life and it leads to problems for other people, but while mostly not actively malicious herself, doesn’t bother intervening when the people she enjoys hurt others.

        She’s an asshole boss while I think mostly not being an asshole herself, unless someone makes her uncomfortable and then the viciousness comes out. I think she’s also egotistic and enjoys being able to do things for her favorites including protecting them from their own bad behavior. Just a lack of empathy for anyone beyond her interests and routine.

      • Mirage says:

        @va va « sceptre deep in BS » this is…….priceless 😂 . Amazing comment!

      • A says:

        @Hope, it’s not that the Queen is “letting people run amok.” That’s not quite how it works with the staff in the royal family. There is no “letting” of anything. The fact is simply that this over reliance on staff members is simply a facet of how the institution itself has been run, from the very start. It’s a feature, not a bug.

        The royal family from Queen Victoria onwards have always outsourced the tasks that require any amount of thinking to high ranking staff members. There are a lot of reasons for this, but I think one of the main ones, as far as Queen Elizabeth’s reign is concerned, is that she is not exactly encouraging a great deal of intellectualism in her court. She does not spend a great deal of time sitting around concerning herself with the optics of the monarchy and the details of her role. It’s too hard. She relies on the people around her to do that for her.

        It’s one thing if the staff she has are doing a good job. For example, Christopher Geidt was very good at his job. He was largely responsible for rehabbing the monarchy’s rep from 2007 to 2017, which were arguably some of the Queen’s best years in recent memory. He was forced out by Charles and Andrew. And the Queen has been up sh-t creek without a paddle ever since.

        And where the snobbery is concerned, this, too, is by design. It’s part and parcel of the institution. I’m pretty sure that Kate received a giant walloping of it herself, when she first married in. But Kate is willing to shrink herself in the face of these grey suits because she is more concerned with what she’s getting at the end of it. She wants to be Queen, and if she wants to be Queen, she will have to play by the rules.

        The other thing that I believe really screwed Harry over is the fact that he has no staffers on the roster who are loyal to him. I think he’s been crowded out by the three competing interests of the Queen, Charles and William, and that’s the sad part.

        This institution has no room to accommodate for the protection and care of anyone else except the monarch and their heirs. They expect loyalty from the rest of the family, but to them, loyalty is a willingness to constantly shrink yourself and your capabilities, to dumb yourself down into mediocrity to serve the egos of the monarch and their heirs. Anything other than that is considered a betrayal. There is a deep, ominous streak of jealousy that runs through the family and that’s the real cause of all this trouble. The Queen, Charles, and William cannot abide by being overshadowed. And god help anyone who does overshadow them, as Harry and Meghan did.

      • Olivia says:

        @Va Va kaboom, your comment is chefs kiss… absolutely spot on. Can I steal it😄

    • Becks1 says:

      Oh man, I’m reading that old post now, and lordy, even a year ago people still had faith in the Queen.

      First comment:

      “Are we calling the queen petty…? Cos if we think it’s possibly true, I’m sure the queen had a fairly decent reason for doing so.”

      YES WE ARE CALLING HER PETTY BETTY FOREVER AND EVER!

      • Anance says:

        She’s a master of pushing responsibility down to her aides. She meets with them daily, so she’s apprised of their activities.

        This woman’s sainthood is perplexing.

    • Ella says:

      @Noki

      A: William (allegedly….)

      • Anance says:

        I remember. William wanted to make sure that any jewelry associated with Diana would be available to Meghan.

        Remember we have NOT seen a true division of Diana’s personal jewelry. Meghan only has the aquamarine ring, a few tiny things and that’s it.

      • ABritGuest says:

        @Anance Dan Wootton has an article today about Sussexit & claims that after tiaragate AK47& William agreed that Meghan would be prevented from accessing royal jewels collection particularly pieces worn by Diana previously. I saw speculation on SM that Diana’s old earrings worn by Kate to Archie’s christening might have actually been a passive aggressive jab about her access rather than a tribute to Harry.

        Anyway the Firm will rue the day Wootton got tea on them as he’s a loose cannon who isn’t part of the rota so not inclined to cover for them unless he gets info he wants. I’ve seen him take obvious shots at them so bet he’s after fresh intel. eg in interview last week he was talking about how it’s not press fault that royal marriages have struggled but it’s due to their affairs. In this piece as well as outing AK47 & will, he also claimed that there WAS a plan to send them to South Africa (as per Shipman article) which backfired& photos in Christmas speech may have been about emotional blackmail. He denied leaks were coming from CH& KP in a way that seemed design to draw attention to idea that they were actually leaking.

        Interesting times ahead.

      • Anance says:

        @ABritGuest Thanks for additional info. I meant “William wanted to make sure that any jewelry associated with Diana NOT would be available to Meghan.”

        UGH!!!

  2. GuestWho says:

    Someone in the Sussexsquad found and posted a delightful article from the 90s about Ms. Kelly literally rolling around on the ground fighting with another royal servant over their (apparently shared) married royal chef paramour. They had to be physically pulled apart by the police. The chef’s wife said that she only knew Angela Kelly as the woman who slept with her husband.

    All class these people.

    I love the Sussexsquad.

    • Bella DuPont says:

      😂

    • Beach Dreams says:

      I saw that! Imagine fighting someone two decades younger than you over a married man…trash doesn’t even begin to describe her.

    • Jess says:

      I love that – I’ve got to find that story! I am a white woman and I am so exhausted and furious over the constant racism, in ways both big and small. I can’t even imagine how people of color, especially women of color, find the strength to deal with it every day.

      • Mary says:

        Also look for the story where Kelly forgot her ID one day at work, pulled a “don’t you know who I am” (they didn’t) she went berserk and ended up on the ground pinned down by police!

      • ArtHistorian says:

        WTF! She sounds like she’s completely nuts.

      • GR says:

        @jess – 100% with you!

      • betsyh says:

        I’d like to read these stories too! I looked at the sussexsquad facebook page and website, but couldn’t find them. I hope you can direct us where to find these?

      • Mary says:

        @betsyh, some of it is in a Camilla Tominey article from the Fall when Kelly’s last book came out. Various people have been posting screenshots on Twitter.

      • betsyh says:

        Thanks Mary!

      • Mary says:

        @betsyh, I found an online Express article from 2011, entitled “the woman who tells the queen what to wear” that contains most of the good tidbits about Angela Kelly.

      • betsyh says:

        Mary, that was a fascinating article! I find reading about the staff in the royal households more interesting than the royal family themselves.

    • Sid says:

      This is some Jerry Springer mixed with those Real Housewives shows type of mess. And these people have the nerve to put on airs?

    • February-Pisces says:

      I’m really questioning the queens judgment in people now. She seems drawn to lunatics.

      • Mary says:

        Very good point, @FP.

      • A says:

        Well, it’s hardly as if the Queen’s gonna go to fisticuffs with people herself. She knows she can’t win, that any one she tried to fight would snap her like a twig (back in the day, and now). It’s why she is notoriously non-confrontational.

      • Anance says:

        She always been like this. Very indulgent to favorites.

        FWIW, Kelly is the mastermind behind Lillibet’s “elder Queen” look, one that has been praised by everyone and a huge improvement over the previous one.

    • OriginalLeigh says:

      That says A LOT about the culture of the firm. Most of us would be terminated immediately if we physically fought someone at work. And these people had the nerve to look down at Meghan?

      • A says:

        She’s not the only person who has had a physical altercation. Wasn’t there some story about Andrew roughing up a staff member at BP because that person wouldn’t let him have a space for his Pitch at the palace initiative or whatever?

  3. Edna says:

    The pettiness knows no bounds. I just can’t imagine living amongst that den of petty, vindictive, racist vipers. So happy the Sussexes escaped that hell hole.

  4. JaneDoesWerk says:

    Another story I read provided a bit more detail. It confirmed that the one Meghan originally selected had emeralds (which I thought was interesting because a. The officials portraits they took were in the green room and Meghan is partial to green) b. Eugenie ended up wearing an emerald tiara on her wedding day not long after! I always wondered if the one she wanted had sort of been set aside for Eugenie or they avoided it because it was too similar.

    But the story I ready said that they wouldn’t lend Meghan the original emerald one that she had chosen because “nobody knew where it had come from” so they couldn’t explain its origins in the press releases…. which seems like a less than solid excuse? What do you mean you have no idea where it came from?!

    • Becks1 says:

      That is one version of the original tiara-gate, and doesn’t make sense. They would not have offered Meghan a tiara that she couldn’t wear because the origins of the emeralds were unknown.

    • Darla says:

      What do they mean? Well, considering their history with the Nazis, I can think of a few things. And then go back farther, and I can think of a few more. I would NOT want to wear any piece of jewelry whose origin that family claimed they didn’t know.

      • Becks1 says:

        Darla, I think at the time, it was said that they were Russian, but of “unknown provenance”, and it was widely speculated that she wanted the Vladimir tiara, but if you google it, you can clearly see that it is not Meghan’s style, AND its one of the Queen’s favorite tiaras, and the british royal family does not share tiaras.

        (also, since the queen does wear it, its clear there isn’t an issue with the origins.)

      • Ines says:

        I don’t know… the Vladimir tiara sounds more and more plausible. And who is to say what is her style? Personally, I think she would have looked great in it.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        If it was Russian – it could be one they BRF snatched up when the Soviet state sold off the spoils after the Revolution. The Vlad that the Queen wears has a an acceptable provenance. It was smuggled out of Russia by a British diplomat and eventually sold to the BRF by its owner. The BRF buying looted jewelry is another story entirely and, frankly, not a good look.

      • Becks1 says:

        But the Vladimir would not have been offered to her, and is not of unknown provenance. Meghan’s dress was simple, her other wedding jewelry was relatively simple – the Vladimir tiara would not have worked with her overall look. And again, there is zero chance it was offered to her.

      • Jay says:

        There are some pieces in the royal collection that might have raised some uncomfortable issues, or the provenance is unclear and so might prove embarrassing. Imagine the awkward contrast between Meghan’s veil and a piece that was “given” to the queen by a colonial ruler of India, for example. Or there are lots of expensive jewels given by, for example, Saudi rulers, that might have drawn criticism.

      • Sid says:

        Ines, I agree with Becks. I have a hard time believing Meghan would have wanted that huge Vladimir tiara, with how simple her dress was and the fact that the Commonwealth flower design on the train was meant to be one of the focal points. She also seems to prefer understated jewelry in general.

      • Shadeau says:

        I agree, zero chance it was the Vlad. If it was indeed an emerald tiara, most likely it was the Greville Emerald Kokoshnik that Eugenie wore, and perhaps Eugenie had already “spoken” for it. The only other possibility I can think of is Queen Mary’s sapphire bandeau; that tiara has an uncertain Russian provenance and the sapphire can be swapped with other jewels; Mary wore it with an emerald at times. It was last worn by Princess Margaret but has been in the vaults (if it is still with the family) for years.

      • windyriver says:

        @Sid, as you mention – the big deal that was made about Meghan’s wedding outfit was the veil, with the embroidery of flowers representing all the Commonwealth nations. If she’d worn an emerald or sapphire tiara, or something with more size, it would have pulled focus from the veil. What she wore suits her style and taste, looks beautiful but allows the veil to shine.

        Actually, just did a quick search on when tiara gate popped up, and it looks like early November 2018 – the article I see is “The Meghan Markle Bridezilla Report”. So, my tin foil hat theory is, the tiara story is retribution by Andy and Fergie for immediately overshadowing Eugenie’s wedding with their pregnancy announcement and tour, and by the family in general for overshadowing all of them with their popularity and success overseas. Angela Kelly was pissed off about Harry getting in her face about dragging her feet for the hair test, but that was an in-house story. It got embroidered and trotted out for tiara gate.

      • candy says:

        @shadeau I just googled it and it does look very similar. It’s beautiful!

        I think the post plausible story is the one that relates to Princess Eugenie. I think someone (Kelly) probably screwed up, and forgot to verify which one Eugenie had selected. Or perhaps had to confirm later that the two royal brides weren’t going to wear a similar tiara. These aren’t rocket scientists and I’m betting it’s a screw up. They don’t take out these tiaras very often and it’s probably a logistical nightmare involving a lot of security. Eugenie’s tiara was valued around $10 million. The two women may have even had back to back appointments hence the mix up.

        Regarding the Vlad, it’s spoken for (by the Queen). No way a royal bride would be offered that one. It’s way too much of a show stopper and reflects rank. Agree that it doesn’t seem like Meghan’s style, which is generally understated. I really like the Queen Mary Diamond Lozenge Bandeau and surprised no royal bride has chosen that one.

      • bettyrose says:

        This is the thing that makes no sense, why was she given the option of choosing a tiara she couldn’t have? Are they really so petty as to set her up for this level of drama? (rhetorical question, obviously.)

    • Ginger says:

      I saw that one too, but why would they show Meghan a tiara she couldn’t wear? It doesn’t make sense. Plus, green wasn’t part of her wedding color. To me, it would look odd. Eugenie’s wedding had green in her wedding party.

    • notasugarhere says:

      You’re repeating an old false narrative, JaneDoesWerk. The issue was Angela Kelly refusing to give Meghan access to her chosen tiara to test her wedding hairdo with it.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        I bet Angela Kelly is the source for all the stories about Meghan and royal jewelry. Plus, it is incredibly unprofessional to block Meghan having access to the tiara for a hair trial! It is her job to keep the collection in order and to facilitate the royals using the pieces they have been given access to. Her holding up the process up to a huge royal event is beyond the pale and I’m amazed she got away with it. There’s no reason for her to act this way but racism – and a confidence that she won’t face consequences. Once again, the Queen shows how weak a boss she is.

      • Beach Dreams says:

        Wasn’t she allowed to publish a book recently (something that’s usually highly discouraged for staff)? Even being a current employee vs. a former staff member, it still seemed rather unusual imo.

      • A says:

        @Beach Dreams, the fact that she was allowed to publish that book actually speaks to the extent of the closeness between Angela Kelly and the Queen. The Queen depends greatly on her, she doesn’t just grant permission for anyone to write and publish books while still under her employ. Angela Kelly has published two. One for the Queen’s jubilee, and another more recently.

      • Feeshalori says:

        The queen granting permission to AK to write those books is really an extraordinary sign of her favor. Her governess, Marion Crawford, was ostracized by the RF when she wrote an innocuous memoir of caring for both Elizabeth and Margaret as children and this was after her employ.

  5. aquarius64 says:

    Omid Scobie has put this on his Twitter page this account of Tiara gate is not in the book.

    • Becks1 says:

      No, Omid retweeted the People mag story. It’s the Daily Mail headline about the Queen “slapping down” M that he says never happened.

  6. BayTampaBay says:

    I am beginning to think that maybe Angela Kelly was the “stage manager” for Beatrice’s wedding as wearing the QEII’s vintage dress was a good idea but the alterations did not come out as well as they could have IMHO. Maybe Ms. Kelly “threw a wrench” on purpose.

    • Hope says:

      I think Angela Kelly tried to do the best she could but her skills are limited and the Yorks picked her as part of their sucking up to the Queen. I think that Times tiara story is very closely linked to the Yorks.

      • Elizabeth says:

        Agreed. She designs lot of clothes for the Queen and they all look the same other than colors. I have her first book about the Jubilee and it’s interesting, but I hadn’t noticed before hoe the lines are all so similar, and no where near as figure flattering as the could be.

      • Anance says:

        Bea’s use of the Queen’s old dress was another way for the Yorks to suck up to the Queen. As for the alterations, I assume Bea wanted them that way.

        If Queen’s gowns were able and I was a royal bride, I would at least peek in the closet. Some of her gowns were spectacular haute couture, with materials and workmanship not seen anymore.

      • Still_Sarah says:

        @ Anance : The Yorks HAVE to suck up to the Queen. It’s the only card they have left to play really.

    • Sid says:

      Interestingly enough, there is a story about a young designer who apparently worked with Angela for a number of years in the BRF, creating QEII’s clothing. Apparently this designer was the true talent with actual skill, but she eventually left because of Angela. I bet if she were still around the hem of Bea’s dress wouldn’t have looked so Frankenstein’s Monster.

    • A says:

      I don’t think she threw a wrench on purpose. I just think that Angela Kelly isn’t actually all that good at what she does, and this dress demonstrates that rather well. She had to repurpose a vintage evening gown into a wedding dress, and I think she was just way out of her depth on that front. The work and the tailoring struck me as very shoddy and unkempt actually, the aesthetic of the dress and the sleeves just clashed. This was not a dress that should have been altered in this way, but y’know, I think that AK is just not as great a seamstress as she or the Queen like to think she is.

  7. L84Tea says:

    Whatever the issue was with the tiaras, in the end, Meghan sort of won no matter what because the tiara she wore was perfection on her. Despite its age, it was modern looking, was interesting to look at it, it worked fabulously with her classic simple gown, and it had some cool factor being that it hadn’t been seen in so many years. So there, Angely Kelly.

    • Jegede says:

      No she didn’t win.😞

      That BS tiara story began the avalanche of relentlessly negative, soul-crushing stories about her, from the wedding onwards and gave the press carte blanche to do what they wanted to her, because they knew they had palace backing.

      • L84Tea says:

        I get what you’re saying, but I am speaking specifically about the tiara she wore that day.

    • Mumbles says:

      It was a stunning tiara – unfussy and elegant – and worked well with her dress. I would put it in the same category as Zara’s and Eugenie’s, and much nicer than Kate’s wedding one.

      • L84Tea says:

        Exactly, it had that same “ooh, look at that” factor that some of the other tiaras lack. It was different looking enough from the typical swirly, flowery tiara that some were anticipating. It definitely falls more in the Zara/Eugenie category, who both wore great tiaras. I was trying to avoid the comparison to Kate’s, but Kate’s scroll tiara wasn’t anything that impressed me at all. I’d choose the bandeau over the scroll anyday.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        I like the frame of Meghan’s tiara – it is a lovely art deco design that is still very modern. However, the center piece is an older brooch (and stylistically different) that the frame was made for. I think the two types of aesthetics clashes and that is why I don’t like Meghan’s wedding tiara very much.

        Eugenie’s wedding tiara was a classic kokoschnik and you rarely go wrong with those + the emeralds are gorgeous. A very traditional design and a safe choice.

        Personally I love Kate’s wedding tiara. Cartier makes exquisite tiaras and this is a beautiful art deco design (I love art deco tiaras, specifically halo tiaras though this particular tiara wasn’t worn as a halo tiara usually is – upright, across the top of the head). However, Kate’s veil almost completely obscured the tiara, which really shouldn’t be worn with a veil at all because it is to small and delicate. Princess Margaret wore it several times and it looked fab. It just doesn’t work with a veil.

        The key to setting off a tiara to its advantage is the hair style. Art deco tiaras are generally great for modern women because they were made when the fashion in hair styles changed radically from big bouffant and pillowy hair styles to sleek and short hair styles.

        Most tiaras are from the Belle Epoque period (just before and around WWI) where women had a LOT of hair. So many of these tiaras are very large – and that’s why they can look odd with a modern hair style, often too large and too tall.

      • Becks1 says:

        I also loved Kate’s wedding tiara, but it got lost with her veil and earrings and even the lacework on her dress distracted from it.

      • Coz' says:

        @ArtHistorian Thank you for all those informations :-)
        I loved all three tiaras but Eugenie was my favourite. I thought it would have been beautiful with Meghan’s gown and veil. That’s why, at the time, I wondered if the tiara gate didn’t came from the Yorks. As the tiara could have been offered to Meghan but the Eugenie decided she wanted it. And then they blow it out of proportion because… pettiness runs deep in the family.

      • 809Matriarch says:

        I agree. I didn’t like Kate’s tiara. It was pretty but paled in comparison to the brilliant Spencer tiara. Meghan’s tiara caught the light and the diamonds were really stunning. Eugenie’s tiara was pretty as well. However since the Royal Jewel vault was quickly off limits to Meghan after her wedding, I’m glad she got to wear a tiara with diamonds that caught the light and flashed such brilliant colors.

      • dawnchild says:

        Always liked Meghan’s tiara, because the bateau neckline of her gown was echoed by the linking arcs in the tiara pattern. And the flower centers by the veil embroidery. I think it was a cohesive design.

    • Ginger says:

      It was a gorgeous tiara and fitted her style perfectly.

  8. Becks1 says:

    Honestly, this all makes a lot more sense given everything we know about the Great Smear Campaign and the courtiers.

    Harry and Meghan pick out her tiara with the Queen, out of a select group the Queen and Angela Kelly had already chosen. MAYBE Meghan asked if there was an emerald one, maybe not, and was told that Eugenie was wearing an emerald one (and I do think Eugenie got to pick first, as the blood princess.) I think there is a very slim chance of that having happened but it would make the emerald tiara story juuuuuuust true enough that it could be leaked and couldn’t be completely denied.

    Meghan needs the tiara for her hair trial, so she goes to Angela Kelly, and Angela Kelly drags her feet. she doesn’t want Meghan wearing a tiara at all maybe, this is just a power move, whatever – and Harry has words with her, and here is where we get the infamous “what Meghan wants, Meghan gets,” because in this case, its the tiara for HER wedding day.

    Angela Kelly has been slapped down by Harry and she’s ticked. So, she leaks the tiara story, with some embellishment, to make Meghan look like a diva. At this point Harry is REALLY ticked because he knows where the story came from, and it confirms for him that his family is working against him.

    • BeanieBean says:

      Oh, that’s exactly it.

    • S808 says:

      They really need to clean house. How a dressmaker is allowed to act like this is ridiculous. I’d hope charles has a list of people on the chopping block after his mom dies but he’s proven to be spinless so I won’t hold out hope.

      • Becks1 says:

        Angela Kelly definitely is going to be gone, I’m assuming Camilla has her own wardrobe person, so she’ll probably just bring that person with her. Angela has knowledge of the jewels and such, and maybe will play a role in terms of selecting the Queen’s dresses etc that will be displayed or saved for posterity, but she’s going to lose a LOT of power when the Queen dies and I assume even if she sticks around for a bit to help sort things, she’ll be gone soon enough after that.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Part of the problem is that as QEII’s friends aged out (say Margaret Rhodes, Myra Butter and Elizabeth Longman) Angle Kelly stepped into the breach and became more than just a dresser.

      • 809Matriarch says:

        In my opinion, it is too late to clean house. Harry knows about military strategies and warfare the enemy agenda is clear. He knew his mother was forced into a divorce and he was not going to stay in a position where the RF and Petty Betty felt they could actually ORDER him to divorce Meghan. So they bounced. I am so happy for them. The world is their oyster. They have each other and share each other’s dreams. That royal freak show is circling the drain. Once the Queen is gone, things will get very interesting.

    • windyriver says:

      There’s a story out there somewhere – hopefully someone else can recall reading it or know where to find it – with quotes by Harry regarding the tiara selection process, essentially as you describe. That he went with Meghan, they were offered a selection of several tiaras, she chose the one she ultimately wore, and he/she thought it was perfect. There was no mention of asking for an emerald one, or anything else, that I recall.

      At the time it sounded like a reputable account but I no longer have a link. I suspect I saw the article not too long after their wedding, which would make sense; I don’t think tiara gate was explicitly out there yet, because I just remember the item as informative about a wedding detail, not as a rebuttal to anything being said elsewhere.

      Anyone else remember this?

      • Becks1 says:

        You’re right, but that came out after the wedding – it was part of the audio tour of her wedding dress/tiara exhibit. I cant remember though if that audio part came out before or after Tiaragate was leaked (which was around October/November 2018 if I remember correctly.)

        I never really got the sense that Meghan wanted another tiara, her tiara looked gorgeous, her earrings were gorgeous, etc.

      • Ginger says:

        The audio came out BEFORE tiara gate. No RR knew Harry went with Meghan to select a tiara . That’s why I don’t buy tiara gate at all. I don’t believe Meghan wanted an emerald tiara or was even offered one. I thought she wasn’t a fan of colored jewelry?

      • windyriver says:

        Yes @Becks1, thank you! That sounds right, I must have seen an early article related to the wedding dress exhibit, which went on display at Windsor on October 26, 2018 through early January 2019.

        I agree, Meghan’s tiara was perfect for her and the dress, as Harry said in the audio.

        Meanwhile, Eugenie’s wedding, with the emerald tiara, was October 12, 2018. And Harry and Meghan landed in Australia on October 15, then announced her pregnancy immediately.

        @Ginger, as above, I also don’t think tiara gate was out there when I read the article relating to the audio/exhibit. But, with the above timeline, it makes it would come out not long after the tour. Remember the fuss about Meghan overshadowing Eugenie’s wedding: 1) photographed in an usually loose coat arriving for the wedding; and 2) supposedly announcing her pregnancy to the family during the wedding (in reality they’d already told everyone). Andrew and Fergie wanted more mileage out of that wedding, put out pictures afterwards of details like the flowers, etc. But Meghan’s pregnancy and the tour took over the front pages immediately after the wedding weekend. And then, there was Harry and Meghan’s popularity on a very successful tour.

        The knives were out.

      • Ennie says:

        @Windydriver What you said about the pregnancy taking the spotlight made me recall something that I read these days. One of the most known female reporters, I can’t remwmber who, was saying maybe on twitter that she was on the Keens Scandinavian tour in early 2018, and she Was leaving for Britain 🇬🇧 after a few days because there was something by Harry and Meghan, and only junior reporters stayed with The FFQ . I bet other royal reporters did just the same.
        Just as it happened in Ireland, too. The photographer who took the iconic photo, left the Ireland tour because Harry and Meghan were going to do their last appearances. They dropped like hot potatoes to go report on the Sussexes.
        Critics complain about the pregnancy stealing the show, maybe they wanted them to keep quiet until the baby was born (yeah, right!)

      • windyriver says:

        @Ennie, what you say about photographers leaving the Cambridge’s last minute Ireland tour to cover Harry & Meghan’s last days sounds familiar, think I read that somewhere also. Another potential reason for Kate and Will’s charming behavior later.

        As far as revealing the pregnancy when they did, they had little choice. It was fairly obvious in the first pictures, of them meeting the Governor General of Australia, that something was doing. They got the announcement out of the way at the beginning to avoid overshadowing the entire tour with the “is she or isn’t she” question.

        But yeah, from what we’re learning now I’m sure certain people would have preferred them to keep quiet as long as possible! or better yet, not have been pregnant at all.

    • Betsy says:

      Yikes. That sounds like such a likely story and the courtiers just come off looking so petty. If Elizabeth were younger I’d fault her for it, but I don’t think she’s as on it as she once was. Unpopular opinion around here, and she has never been a good boss, but I just don’t think her heart’s in it like it probably was in previous decades.

      • FicklePickle says:

        I think in her 90s, with a rather poor education, surrounded by a family notorious for being no great thinkers even amongst an entire social circle renowned for their lack of intellectual curiosity (and habit of buying degrees)…I mean, when it comes to cognitive ability, you either use it or lose it.

        And it likely doesn’t take much effort for Queenie to maintain the illusion that everything’s fine upstairs. Dogs, horses, meals, chat about the weather, and if she ever decided to not really read what’s in those red boxes the government sends her and just signs stuff blindly, would anyone EVER question her?

    • GG says:

      I think this is a pretty accurate assessment of what happened. The only thing I disagree with Angela is NOT family – so this isn’t the moment he realized his family was against them. Angela is an employee of his family who was Put in her place and didn’t like it, and leaked a story about the tiara. I think the moment Harry be realized his family was against him comes from a different backstab.

      I also expect there is a deep hierarchy among the staff (I always think of Mr. Carson getting his knickers in a twist from downton and how the rest of the staff needed to be in his good graces as well as the Crawley family’s to retain their employment) and Angela is at the top of the peasant pyramid with intimate access to the Queen. Even if a lower ranking staff member didn’t have beef with Meghan, having beef with Angela Kelley could likely impact their career so that set the tone for the other household staff.

      • Mary says:

        LOL, @gg, I saw some people on Twitter comparing Angela Kelly to O’Brien on Downton Abbey!!!

      • Jane's Wasted Talent says:

        By allowing Kelly’s disrespectful behavior to continue (ie, leaking to the tabloids after the offense), the Queen would be basically choosing her over Harry- so I would argue that since it probably did go down this way, then yes, it was another sign of his family turning in him.

    • MaryContrary says:

      Yes-and I think it went down like this. I’m sure this wasn’t the first thing that had happened either-which is why he would have snapped at her about “Meghan getting what Meghan wants.” In his mind, this employee is treating his future wife horribly, probably due to racism. It should not be her decision about which of the tiaras Meghan got to wear. Ugh. And then for this awful woman to spin and leak the story in such a way that makes Meghan look bad-ugh.

      • 809Matriarch says:

        This is where I think Harry & Meghan got sick of this “Firm”. From the way the courtiers blocked his requests to see his Granny to the way she fobbed them off on Angela Kelly. It sounds so irksome.

    • L4frimaire says:

      That “ What Meghan wants “ statement was probably Harry just shutting down her BS after her foot dragging with helping Meghan. You know this woman is a straight up racist and hates other women.

  9. Faye says:

    These folks in the palace are just straight evil. Glad Harry and Meghan are gone.

  10. Loretta says:

    There is so much racism and classism in the Palace, Meghan was living in a hell during those 2 years.

  11. Florence says:

    This has never made sense to me – NO ONE is going to argue with the queen, reject her gifts/ offers, etc. Especially not someone marrying in. It’s like starting a new job then telling the boss she makes awful coffee.

    Instead the boss’s right-hand crony, wanting to throw her weight around by humiliating the newbie? That makes sense.

    • MJM says:

      A way to get back at Harry who told her to do her job too. Knowing the Queen would take her side.

  12. S808 says:

    Harry literally had to accompany Meghan to make sure she did her damn job how sad. He brought the queen too for good measure. Angela was probably pissed about that hence tiaragate and maybe blocking Meghan from using any other jewels. That worked out fine though cause she had plenty of Diana’s jewelry and lord know the tabs would’ve guesstimated the cost and tack onto that already overinflated wardrobe amount.

  13. Snap Happy says:

    Harry and Meghan participated in some audio recording for the display of the dress after the wedding. In it they claimed she went to see the queen and chose from the tiaras the queen picked for her. I doubt they would make up the story about going to see the queen. What was the timeline though? Because the book confirms that at some point Meghan was interested in an emerald tiara. Was that her first choice? How did she even see the tiara to choose it? I think the book left some of this story out, presumably to protect the queen from looking snatchy with her jewels. I don’t think Meghan is a tiara demanding diva, but I think the book would have served her better buy explaining The whole story. Give the timeline of what happened when and why decisions were made.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      Maybe part of this story is what the “legal team” made Scobie cut out????

    • Mary says:

      Totally agree @snappy, @btb and the story told for the wedding exhibit does not preclude a prior tiara issue. I also think that any tiara choice by Meghan would have been made from what was offered to her ( as opposed to her demanding a random tiara).

  14. Anony83 says:

    So, this story always rang weird to me because I feel like the story could EASILY have gone like this “Meghan looked at pictures of the tiaras, liked the emerald one, the Queen wanted her to use the one she wore, and Meghan said okay that one is gorgeous too.”

    Because the Mary tiara (or whatever it’s called) looked gorgeous. I’m SURE Meghan loved it. That’s the irony here, so many of these stories would fit into a NORMAL wedding planning, like when a bride on SYYTD falls in love with the too expensive dress but then finds one in her price range and loves that too.

    Even Keen Kate crying, like, that stuff happens at weddings all the time. People are stressed, a lot is going on, brides and involved parties cry about stupid stuff all the time. ALL the time. The next day they hug it out, say “wow that was crazy day but you looked so beautiful, I’m so happy for you, yada yada”, and then walk away and it never comes up again. The fact that the Cambridges and the Royal Rota ran with the Keen Kate Crying “smear” for so long just shows how little actual THERE there was there in terms of Meghan being an “unreasonable diva” because if these are the best examples they could think of, Meghan comes out sounding great.

    • Ashipper says:

      I hated this story so much. There is no way, absolutely no way, Meghan was “demanding” anything. Can you imagine? I’m sure she was very grateful to have the opportunity to wear any tiara. It’s obvious she wanted a simple, minimalist look for her wedding and that tiara worked perfectly. It really makes my blood boil (and I shouldn’t care). I’m sure this story hurt her a lot.

      • Thirtynine says:

        I think so too, Ashipper. I can’t imagine for one second Meghan, with her manners and diplomacy and respectful attitude towards Harry’s grandmorher, asking for or demanding anything. The tiara she wore was in perfect accord with her taste and her dress and veil, and I will never believe that anything else was ever intended. Any stories about emeralds are just more made-up mud to smear her, and now its revealed who was doing the smearing this time.

  15. RoyalBlue says:

    i always suspected that witch was behind a lot of the leaks.

  16. LaraW" says:

    Not about the tiara but about the official wedding portrait with the extended family – why is the interior so dark? Could they not be bothered to install studio lighting? Compared to the radiant, bright photos taken preceding, during, and following the wedding ceremony, the shadowed interior looks gloomy and almost sinister, like some kind of gothic novel with a tragic ending. The angle is weird, like the wedding party is backed into a corner. There’s presumably some kind of natural(?) light coming from the left hand side, so then why not take the against the opposite wall? Also the bizarre mirror reflecting mirrors with the back of Charles and Harry’s heads and the timepiece, the way that none of the framing elements – the door, the table legs, the lamps, the carpet, the freaking wallpaper – are square gives the photo this off-kilter quality. Maybe there are better photos which were not released, but I have always really disliked this one.

    • Betsy says:

      It’s pretty. It calls to mind some of those old Dutch portraits.

    • Dee says:

      The mirrors reflect soft light. It’s very beautiful.

    • ClaireB says:

      I agree that the light is pretty but that it’s also really hard to make out everyone’s features in this photo.

    • megs283 says:

      I don’t know these people, but even I can see that 90% of the smiles are fake. C’mon, people!!

      Also, Doria… she knew what her baby was in for..

  17. Rapunzel says:

    Meg certainly wouldn’t have demanded a particular tiara. And would not complain about which tiara was offered. She’d be too savvy for that.

    My theory? Eugenie didn’t actually choose first (for reasons) and Meg chose her tiara. At the time, she said something like, “I like this one but too bad it’s not emerald” Angela Kelly thought the tiara was too good for Meg. But even though Meg chose first, there was an understanding that if Eugenie wanted the same tiara, she’d get it instead of Meg. Meg was okay with this, but Kelly dragged her feet lending it, hoping Eugenie would pick it because the Queen would then tell Meg “sorry, the blood princess has dibs” and Meg would have to wear a lesser tiara.

    But the tiara was needed for a hair trial, and Harry stepped in saying, “look, Meg wants this tiara, and she gets it. Now. No more waiting around in case Eugenie wants it. She’s got to plan her hair for the wedding and you’re getting in the way”

    So Meg got the tiara. And Kelly then offered Eugenie that striking emerald tiara as a passive aggressive move, since she knew Meg had kinda wanted emerald. And Meg was like, “wtf, why didn’t I get offered that?”

    • Ginger says:

      To me, Eugenie was promised that tiara years ago. Maybe when she was a kid she told the Queen she wanted it when she got married. Eugenie has green eyes and the tiara is perfect for her. Plus her bridesmaids had green in their dress. I feel like that tiara was always promised for her. It just would look so weird on Meghan considering her bridesmaids had hardly any color on their dresses. I’m sure the dresses were made before a tiara was selected.

      • Rapunzel says:

        Ginger- I was thinking that till this story about AK dragging her feet top get Meg the tiara. I can’t fathom what other excuse she could have had for delaying like that. And I do think she’d have to have an excuse. I can’t see her just saying “you’ll get it later” over and over.

        Maybe she used cleaning or repair and maintenance issues as an excuse? But for why? What good would delaying do? It would only do good if you were buying time for someone else like Eugrnie to swoop in and take it.

        Maybe AK just thought she could buy time to convince QE2 to not lend the tiara? That might be the most plausible answer, if it wasnt for the fact that nobody in their right mind would think HM would go back on a tiara offer. AK is maybe not in her right mind though.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        There doesn’t have to be any deeper reason for the delay other than AK was being racist and knew she could get away with it. This shit is what petty, hateful people do when they know they can get away with it scot free. This is a plausible explanation, especially in the light of all these other stories about how AK behaves. Behaviour that would get her fired anywhere else. History is rife with royal favorite behaving abominably exactly because they had royal favour.

      • Becks1 says:

        agree with ArtHistorian. Angela Kelly was a bitch because she knew she could be. She’s been on a power trip for years and when you factor in racism, she probably just went all in with the power.

      • A says:

        @Ginger, I don’t think that’s the case. The details regarding what exactly the Queen has in her vaults is just not something that’s public knowledge. People have a rough idea of what should be in there, given historical gifts, purchases, etc, but unless you see it being worn, people don’t know it exists.

        So I highly doubt Eugenie, or even the Queen herself, had any idea that that tiara was there in the vaults, or was in a wearable condition, at the time. It hadn’t been seen for a few decades until Eugenie wore it, iirc. Besides, the Queen isn’t that type of warm and fuzzy person anyway, to behave like a kindly grandma who’d go around promising her granddaughter something like this at a young age.

    • L4frimaire says:

      I think that tiara Eugenie wore would have looked terrible on Meghan. It looks too big and solid, and the stones look too big. It worked well for Eugenie, but thought the tiara Meghan wore looked right with her style. I see some people on here giving Kelly the benefit of a doubt for really ungracious petty actions, but for some reason insist Meghan was creating some difficulty with this tiara. Why is that? This was the biggest televised event that year, of course it would be a deliberative process, but some are still looking for some way that Meghan must have done something wrong,instead of the usual back and forth involved in decisions. 10 years from now this will still be debated. Was this type of behind the scenes drama voiced about other royal brides preparation?

      • fluffy_bunny says:

        Meghan should have told them to stuff the tiara and then left the world wondering why she wasn’t wearing one and then leaked why she wasn’t. She’s not petty like them. It would have looked horrible if Meghan showed up tiaraless. She literally embraced the Commonwealth via her veil and they have the nerve to treat her like this. She loves Harry so deeply she gave up her entire fucking life to be mistreated by this dysfunctional family and their employees. And they’re still to dumb to realize what they could have had and lost.

      • Royalblue says:

        @fluffy, I too did not want her to wear a tiara from since before the wedding. I wanted her to wear a crown of flowers instead, and held out hope until the end.

  18. MerryGirl says:

    People speculated on this site long ago that Angela Kelly was behind this tiara smear story. After all she’s the keeper of the Queen’s jewels and I can bet she’s one of vindictive racist courtiers who disliked having to answer to Meghan, hence Harry had to get involved. What a b**ch.

  19. Mary says:

    I think both tiara stories happened.

    Meghan initially chose (Eugenie’s) emerald tiara because it was one of several offered to her but for some reason she was later denied this tiara on a flimsy excuse (because Eugenie wanted it or it was forgotten that it had previously been offered to her?).

    Then, with the Queen, because Angela Kelly was not to be trusted, Harry and Meghan chose the bandeau. But Angela Kelly was pissed and drug her feet, angering Harry…. Kelly, angered that Harry dare question her then leaked the TiaraGate story, making Meghan, unfairly, look like the bad guy, to Jobson and Low.

    I also think that the Meghan Barred from Wearing Queen’s Jewels story came from Kelly, along with others regarding the hat, veil, color of wedding dress, etc.

    Pretty sure Kelly is one of the courtiers Prince Harry said was determined to make Meghan’s life difficult. Some of us have known since 2018 that it was Kelly leaking stuff about Meghan. I am just glad that it is finally coming out.

    So, what’s next? Is Kelly fired or is she photographed with the Queen on her way to church?

    • Becks1 says:

      @Mary – my initial thought was that Meghan had originally picked Eugenie’s tiara, and then Andrew pitched a fit because Eugenie should get to pick first, and she picked that one, as a power move on her part. But, the rest of M’s wedding look was so monochromatic – not just her, but the bridesmaids and pageboys – that I think that tiara would not have worked. I think it was leaked that she wanted an emerald so that people thought she wanted Eugenie’s, as a way to slap M down in the press because the blood princess got “her” tiara, even though it never happened.

      I don’t know. The emerald tiara story is weird to me.

      but I definitely think that Meghan was happy with her tiara, and that Harry got ticked at Angela Kelly for dragging her feet over it (went over her head to the queen?) and that was the reason for the leaked tiara story – Angela Kelly firing back.

      • Mary says:

        @Becks1, yeah, the emerald tiara story is weird and that is, in part what makes me think something did happen regarding that tiara. The story is so specific and sources are adamant it happened and are confirming that it was indeed the tiara Eugenie wore. The first publication, I think, to tie Eugenie’s tiara to the story was, then Kate-friendly, Tatler.

        It also seems like too much of a coincidence that Kelly, in the Spring of 2018, leaked to Jobson about an emerald tiara, that no one had seen in about 70 years, and Eugenie shows up in it in the Fall.

        I also think that a gorgeous, Art Deco, emerald tiara would appeal to Meghan and would look great with her dress. I remember it being reported shortly before Harry and Meghan’s engagement that emeralds are Meghan’s favorite stone (it was a story reporting that Harry was having an emerald ring made for her). If true, Meghan, or any emerald-loving gal, would have jumped at the chance to wear the Greville.

        I absolutely agree that the Yorks are involved in perpetuating TiaraGate and if Meghan did first pick the Greville that there was some York foot stomping. Happily, it looks as though the truth of TiaraGate will come out sooner than later!

        Regardless, Meghan did look absolutely beautiful in Queen Mary’s bandeau tiara!

      • Snappyfish says:

        It’s possible that Eugenia did pick first. Her wedding was moved back because Harry’s wedding, as the son of the heir, took precedence to hers. The one Meghan wore was lovely and suited her perfectly.

        As for Kate’s dress color, I believe it to be a pale yellow BUT it was because she had just had Louis & pushed Harry to 6th in line to the throne that the marriage was even allowed. After 5th you no longer need the permission of the crown. So all the divorced American BS wasn’t used as a reason he couldn’t marry who he wished. It did happen with Koo Stark (who dodged a bullet in my opinion) Had it be me I would have allowed Kate to wear a dress with a train.

      • notasugarhere says:

        The first SIX people in the line of succession are required to get permission from the monarch. Harry requested and received the Queen’s permission to marry Meghan.

        The birth of Louis meant Andrew was now free to remarry Fergie without permission.

      • Sunday says:

        The emerald story is so out of place with Meghan’s style in general and the wedding design in particular. Now, consider on a daily basis how many muscles the royal rota pull R-E-A-C-H-I-N-G for their asinine hot takes on how awful everything about Meghan is.

        With all this in mind, I would not doubt in the least if Meghan had made a good-natured passing joke about “I’m not in Kansas anymore” and those fools extrapolated from that Kansas -> Oz -> Emerald City -> Meghan’s demanding emeralds, how dare she!

        I mean all the attacks on her are so pitifully stupid that I would not be surprised in the least.

    • MaryContrary says:

      She’s never getting fired by the Queen. I’m sure her retirement is tied up nicely too for when the Queen passes away and Charles ascends the crown. She’ll probably get to live free forever in some royal property for her service to the Queen.

      • Mary says:

        Maybe Angela and Andy can hook up.. ..They can live off of Angela’s income from her tell-all books and spew venom at the Sussexes from Royal Lodge. Fergie, of course, would be relegated to the basement after a Dynasty-style brawl between her and Angela…

      • Original Penguin says:

        @Mary I think Angela is a tad too old for Andy’s tastes

    • A says:

      Unless Eugenie made her own tiara choice around the same time as Meghan did, I cannot see how or why she would have had a conflict with Meghan’s decision on this. If Meghan had chosen it first, then Eugenie simply would not have been offered the tiara for her wedding at all. It would have been taken out of the running, and she would have had to choose something else.

      The Queen doesn’t just let anyone peruse her whole entire inventory. She has Angela Kelly select a number of potential options, and has them look at that to choose from. You don’t get to pick just whatever, you get to pick from a specific selection, which is likely put together based on details about your wedding look itself.

      No one should have known that the emerald kokoshnik was still there in the Queen’s vaults. I doubt either Eugenie or anyone else in that family looks too closely into these matters to be aware that such a tiara could have even still existed, and been in a wearable condition. Eugenie would not have known it’s an option, and I can’t see how she would have known that Meghan had chosen it. It’s possible that Angela Kelly is responsible for telling her and causing a conflict or whatever, but my money is on the idea that the whole story is just made up.

      • Mary says:

        @A: “Eugenie would not have known it’s an option …. (or) that Meghan had chosen it. It’s possible that Angela Kelly is responsible for telling her and causing a conflict or whatever, but my money is on the idea that the whole story is just made up.”

        I could totally see Kelly telling her, just as I could see Eugenie, or more likely her Dad, asking what Meghan was going to wear. The Yorks seemed real determined to make sure everyone knew that Eugenie’s wedding was going to be better in all ways than Harry and Meghan’s wedding. I could totally see Andy wanting to make sure that whatever tiara Meghan wore, Eugenie’s would be better (by that I mean bigger, more valuable).

        Another option is that Eugenie has done a tour of the vaults. Remember, at her evening reception she wore one or two of Queen Victoria’s wheat brooches. If I am not mistaken, these are part of the royal collection and are usually only worn by a Queen. Did the Queen offer those or did Eugenie ask to wear them because she previously saw them?

        So, it is feasible to me that either or both Eugenie was aware of the Greville tiara or asked to wear a tiara that Megan had already chosen. But then, I am not a fan of Eugenie’s and think that she has had the knives out for Meghan from the get-go, given her AYA earrings stunt.

      • A says:

        I think she was offered the use of those brooches is probably a more likely explanation. The Queen has little to no interest in either jewelry or fashion. She likes to look good, but she’s not all that into the details. I can’t repeat this enough times, but she’s not an intellectual, and she lacks intellectual curiosity, and this has simply never been a realm of interest for her.

        So to that end, I think that she definitely benefits a great deal from leaving these sorts of things to her staff members. And she has had some great staffers who have dressed her in some splendid designs. But I don’t think anyone has really taken much of an interest in the royal jewelry until Angela Kelly. She has been given unprecedented access to the vaults, and I wouldn’t be surprised if she’s also had a lot of access to the notes and inventory in the royal archives and such.

        Of course, that level of access and closeness to the Queen was hard won for AK. I won’t deny that she’s dressed the Queen well, that she co-ordinates the outfits well, and that she has earned the Queen’s trust over the years thanks to the work she’s done.

        But at the same time, Angela Kelly knows full well that she would have never treated any other person in the way she’s treated Meghan. I have no doubt in my mind that AK behaved this way due to her own prejudices and racism, whether she’d admit to it or not, and that she came into her contact with Meghan with several preconceived notions about how Meghan would be, and was determined to stick to them for the most part. Her snobbery is out of this world, and it’s something she needs to be held accountable for.

  20. C-Shell says:

    That this school drop-out, thrice-divorced, unfit mother of three, brawling former housekeeper — trailer trash — is empowered to tell a blood royal prince and his chosen bride they cannot touch royal jewelry is so vile and offensive, it goes off the scale. I’d wish Charles and Camilla would send her packing, but I’m sure she’ll be “retired” in the style to which she’s become accustomed because she knows all the dirt.

  21. Prayer Warrior says:

    I’m sure there is more than one tiara w/emeralds……
    I’m delighted this story has a name: Angela Kelly … know we SEE you here in the Commonwealth, where one thing we’ll insist upon once the Queen is gone is that you are too!! Part of the stream-lined approach, if nothing else. Besides, I’m sure there’s a written record of all the crown jewels somewhere…AK’s knowledge won’t mean any history is lost forever.
    If we cannot put these people on trial, how else can we muzzle them?

    • A says:

      There are historical records. The bulk of the inventory on the royal jewelry, artwork, etc, was taken by Queen Mary. Not only was she the one who was responsible for building up the collection to what it is today (she received a lot of really nice wedding gifts, + purchased a lot of great jewelry), she was also the historian and intellectual in the family at the time. She had a great interest in tracking the provenance of jewelry and stuff like that.

      She was also known to be a bit light-fingered, if you know what I mean, but that’s neither here nor there.

  22. Lizzie says:

    Thank you all. This story never made sense to me and I now I get it. I always wondered how Meghan would even know about a tiara if it was not offered and why Harry would even care. It all makes perfect sense. Maybe Kate will hire her, she certainly could improve her wardrobe and they sound like birds of a feather.

    • Ennie says:

      I read in some articles how Kate gets along (sucks up) with this woman, that is why she easily wears whichever jewelry from the vaults.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Ennie – yes, I was just going to comment on that! Kate cultivated a friendship with AK so she can have access to the good jewels. Like, she’s the future future queen and she has to suck up to a courtier? To get jewelry that doesn’t belong to said courtier? You wouldn’t think that would be happening in 2020. Tudor times, maybe, but not 2020.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        Sounds like the Queen has no control over her own household.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        IMHO, The Queen has no control over her household or family because The Queen will not TAKE control.

      • Lanie says:

        All the sucking up in the world wouldn’t help Meghan. Angela Kelly is racist. She does not want a biracial person touching the Crown Jewels

      • ArtHistorian says:

        I wonder if it isn’t the other way round – that AK has started to suck up to Kate (and William). She might want a job with them because I think otherwise she’s out when the Queen croaks.

        Sophie Wessex has also started to suck up to Kate. Probably because Charles is a lost cause.

        Historically, in the last years of an aging monarch’s reign people (courtiers, etc.) usually started to gravitate towards the heir. In this case, it is the heir’s heir but I get the feeling that these people know that they can’t get anywhere with Charles and that his reign will probably be short, so they are focusing on getting in the good graces of the Cambridges.

  23. Lisa says:

    Very thing is slowly getting context and we can clearly see where the stories were coming from and the issues being dealt with by Meghan and Harrym

  24. L4frimaire says:

    I’m very ambivalent about this book because Meghan is getting attacked again. However, it is setting the record straight on some of these ridiculous stories. Angela Kelly sounds like a nasty piece of work with some serious baggage,who has undue influence over the Queen, and controls access to her. You know she’s also the one who,leaked that nasty jewel story about Meghan not wearing royal jewels.

    • Jane's Wasted Talent says:

      They will attack her regardless, but someone here relayed an excellent quote about racism that applies very well, ‘Hit dogs holler.’ So it helps to remember that whenever they attack. Their influence has already shown to be negligible on the global stage, and the fact that they’re so fervid about this books means they’ve been hit HARD. Enjoy :-)

    • Sid says:

      From what I see Meghan is getting attacked mainly by the usual suspects of British media loons, Daily Fail devotees, and Cambridge and royal sycophant types. I’m seeing a lot of people who had no clue about any of this saying that they are really surprised at how ridiculous the BRF is and at how much Meghan had to deal with.

      • Beach Dreams says:

        I’m seeing the same. It’s also clear that the royals are panicking about this book because they’ve been doing a lot of explaining and complaining. KP in particular can’t seem to keep their stories straight.

    • L4frimaire says:

      It really is high school- level petty, with the staff having outsize influence in the most intimate and smallest of matters.They couldn’t focus on the big picture, them working within the firm,Meghan transitioning to royal life and the renewed global attention it brought to the Royal family. Instead, they decided to get involved in this newlywed couples marriage, trash Meghan’s reputation, erase her previous life, and use the most benign private situations, private to distort and leak to the press. They used the most vile racist,sexist stereotypes, the angry, grasping black woman, social climber, then tried to gaslight and attack everyone who called it out, and are still doing it. Then they use even the slightest bit of protest and pushback to call her “ ungrateful”. These people really are the absolute worst, ignorant,insular and arrogant.

    • Becks1 says:

      She is getting attacked but I’m seeing a LOT of “blue checks” on twitter coming to her defense, or at least attacking the royal family, people that I don’t know and I go to see “who they are” and they’re radio hosts or podcast hosts etc. The arts and entertainment editor at the Telegraph tweeted something about Will’s “uber driver getting frisked” comment that said she hated it with every fiber of her being. etc.

      Also, this story about Angela Kelly ran in People. I can see UK publications being a little more “well there’s a hierarchy in the palace and Meghan wasn’t following the rules” but Americans don’t care about that, not really. As an America, I read the parts about Angela Kelly and I literally gasped. She blocked access to Meghan’s (already chosen) tiara and Harry had to go over her head? What kind of place is Petty Betty running over there??? I think that’s going to be the takeaway for many and that’s why that excerpt was included in People. People are, bit by bit, seeing what Meghan faced right from the beginning.

  25. February-Pisces says:

    If Angela kelly is so f*cking indispensable why doesn’t she go out and cut all the f*cking ribbons and have her personal life and reputation torn to shreds. Sorry feeling like a bi*ch today, but it’s funny how a blood born prince and the only likeable member of this ratchet family ISN’T even considered as important as the f*cking staff.

    • Mary says:

      Yes, it is galling that not only did Kelly cause issues for, and leak about, the Sussexes and she got away with it but that she sat in on the Sandringham Sussexit negotiations. We now know that the Queen had to have been aware of the tension between Kelly and Harry yet she makes Harry face that b*tch during the negotiations? That had to have felt like a slap in the face to Harry.

      Clearly, the Queen values Kelly over her grandson and granddaughter-in-law; and, she wanted to make sure Harry knew it.

      • Feeshalori says:

        Seriously, the queen’s dresser sitting in at negotiation meetings? Well, now you can really see the tail wagging the dog!

      • Ginger says:

        I still can’t believe she was at the summit. That’s so odd. There was no need for her to be there.

      • Alexandria says:

        She was there? WTF. Does she have nudes of Petty Betty or wot? This racist witch probably tries on all the tiaras and crowns and pretends she is the Queen.

      • A says:

        @Feeshalori, she’s not just the Queen’s dresser. She’s also her personal assistant.

      • Feeshalori says:

        I see, thanks for the clarification, A. But l knew l had a visceral reason for cancelling AK’s book months ago that l had ordered at the library. Now l know my gut feeling was correct about her after these revelations about her sheer nastiness.

      • MA says:

        AK sounds like the Queen’s Rasputin

  26. TheOriginalMia says:

    Another story about an employee of the Firm acting badly towards Meghan. No wonder Harry walked around mad all the time. I mean…my God, these people and their biases made Meghan’s life a living hell. No wonder Charles calls her Tungsten. She put up with so much from these assholes and still said yes. She carried Archie full term in the face of all the abuse being heaped on her. Angela Kelly better hope the Queen outlives her because that beyotch is gone once Charles and Camilla take the throne.

  27. Queen Meghan's Hand says:

    But about the tiaras…all this drama and ruckus this dull bulb Angela Kelly caused for some ugly jewelry pieces and with her bad taste.
    The tiaras the York sisters Eugenie (sp?) and Beatrice wore are not pretty, not flattering. And the Cambridge and Sussex tiaras were too underwhelming for women marrying princes of Wales.
    Lover’s Knot they are all not.
    Am I alone in this opinion?

    • Beach Dreams says:

      The tiaras Meghan and Eugenie wore were very nice in my opinion. I didn’t like Beatrice’s choice because it gave me medieval costume vibes when taking her entire look into account. Kate’s wasn’t bad but it was definitely too understated for the rest of her wedding look. I know people will argue otherwise, but I’m sure she would’ve picked a tiara more closer to the size of Meghan’s and Beatrice’s if she had the choice. A tiara like the Lovers Knot would’ve been way too much though.

      • A says:

        Beatrice’s choice isn’t the best of it’s “type” of tiara that’s out there. I’ve always hated that particular tiara, because there are others like it (in the Queen’s collection too) that are just so much nicer and prettier in design. This one is just too much like a sh-tty picket fence and I can’t get over it. You can also see, in the Queen’s wedding pictures, that it’s been broken and hastily repaired together, which makes me think that it’s a badly made tiara from the get go.

      • FicklePickle says:

        I always figured Kate picked the Cartier Halo Scroll because it’s the one tiara in the vaults that looks kinda like the Spencer tiara, that Diana wore for her wedding. Sort of a kissing cousins thing, not sisters. But it is the closest.

      • A says:

        @FicklePickle? Really? I always figured she was offered the Cartier Halo because they wanted to carve a niche for her in the RF that stayed away from Diana’s image as much as possible. Both Kate and Camilla wore a lot of the Queen Mother’s former tiaras, and Kate got a few of the ones that Princess Margaret wore. The Cartier Halo and the Lotus flower were nice, neutral tiaras and I think she got them around the time she was married.

        Camilla got a lot of the bigger ones from the Queen Mother’s collection. She has the hair to wear them though, which is what’s great.

      • FicklePickle says:

        @A Both may very well be true. The Queen and Kelly may have chosen neutral starter tiaras to put on offer to try to avoid Diana comparisons, but Kate may have had a rather different idea in mind when picking it (seeking to honor her late mother-in-law, which is quite a reasonable thing to do).

        And while Kate may have gotten some nice neutral ones to start with, the one she’s worn the most has been Queen Mary’s Lover’s Knot Tiara.

    • Eugh says:

      I think most of the married ins get screwed wedding tiara wise. The queen makes them work up to nicer and nicer ones. Eugenie’s and Beatrice’s were really nice since they are taller – Eugenie’s being perfect for her. Someone brought up the sapphire bandeau and wow that would have been stunning and a nice nod to Diana with the sapphire given that Will stole the engagement ring from Harry.

      • Alexandria says:

        I just realised that hurt. Harry gave William the sapphire and look how William and Kate treated his wife and child.

        Harry you’re a true King.

      • A says:

        Fergie actually got a nice, brand new tiara, and I was really surprised that neither of her daughters wore it for their wedding. That’s assuming Fergie still has it, she might have sold it.

    • Mary says:

      I think Meghan’s tiara was beautiful on her but might have looked underwhelming on a bigger -headed woman (of which I am one LOL!). I do like the Kokoshnik shape and emeralds of Eugenie’s tiara but did not like the way the diamonds were set. Kate’s did look underwhelming on her but her head has to be at least half again as big as Meghan’s (check out Wimbledon pictures where they are sitting next to each other!), so on her it did look small to me. Beatrice’s tiara needed an up do and it is pretty sparse for a fringe (compared to Betty’s blingy fringe).

      So, while none of them knocked me out, I think Meghan’s was the best bride-dress-tiara fit. It also had the most sparkle! Had I been able to choose for Meghan, I would have picked the Lotus Flower or the Turquoise. Both would have been stunning on Meghan with that dress.

      Hmmmm, the Lotus Flower….. Could that have anything to do with the weird Meghan can’t wear any of the Queen’s jewelry Diana has worn story? Just insert Kate instead of Diana.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Mary – not quite, but kind of. the British Royal Family does not share tiaras and such the way other royal families do. So when we saw Kate wearing the Lotus Flower, that was it, she is the only one we are going to see wearing the lotus flower while the Queen is alive (maybe it will change at that point.) We are never going to see anyone else wearing the CLK tiara, and so on. This is actually sad because the Queen has a lot of tiaras and they just stay in the vault.

      • Mary says:

        @becks1, normally I would agree with you but that rule (that seemed to apply to non-tiara jewelry as well) appears to have been thrown out the window. Case in point, Kate has worn a few things that Sophie has previously worn, e.g., Bahrain earrings. The most obvious example was that Kate wore the earrings at last December’s diplomatic reception that Sophie had worn for the prior state dinner, along with with accompanying necklace and her reformed tiara.

        So either the prior lifetime-loan rule has changed or, omg, KATE GETS WHAT KATE WANTS!!!!

      • Sid says:

        Mary I am a fellow member of the Big Head Brigade and have big afro-textured hair to boot, so while I do love the smaller tiaras they wouldn’t look right on me unless I really pulled my hair back tightly. The bigger Belle Epoque-era tiaras ArtHistorian referenced upthread are right up my alley.

      • Mary says:

        LOL, @sid, you and I can wear the big-gun tiaras on our beautiful, big heads!

  28. Original Penguin says:

    Diana never wore the lotus flower. But it is (sort of) in Kate’s rotation. I would love to say the Queen Mary sapphire bandeau again.

    But having said that I thought Meghan’s tiara was perfect for her look and very much in style with her Cartier jewellery. I loved how it looked on the wedding day. It’s a very lovely bridal tiara. And much nicer than some that continental royals have worn on their wedding days (eg Mary of Denmark)

    • Mary says:

      Yes, that’s why I said switch out the word Kate for Diana. I think Kate didn’t want Meghan having access to anything she has already worn.

      • The Quill says:

        Based on what? The Tiara Meghan wore was perfect for her imo. She’s a tiny person. Anything larger would have been overwhelming and may not have suited the simplicity of her dress.

      • Feeshalori says:

        I think Meghan’s tiara was a perfect fit for her style and proportions. But, oh, I’d have loved to have seen QM’s sapphire bandeau on her too. I think that would have suited her beautifully as well.

  29. FrenchGirl says:

    Honestly the dress would work will better without the tiara

  30. Rapunzel says:

    Thinking further on this, I have a couple speculations:

    I wonder if this delay in getting the tiara affected her hairstyle at the wedding. A lot of folks thought it was messy… could that be because they didn’t have the tiara with enough time to properly prepare? I also wonder if this affected the dress, as people though it fit improperly as well. Did Meg not have time for a final fitting because she was dealing with tiara drama?

    Also, I wonder if Meg declared afterwards that she’d never work with Kelly again, which is why we heard she’d been banned from the jewels? Thar could have been Kelly leaking in a “you can’t fire me, I quit ” type fashion.

    I’m also thinking Kelly might be part of the problem between Will and Harry. There were rumors that the beef between the brothers wasn’t necessarily about themselves. Perhaps Will took Kelly’s side? FFQC consort Kate needs a dresser, no?

    • Mary says:

      @Rapunzel:. “. . . I wonder if Meg declared afterwards that she’d never work with Kelly again, which is why we heard she’d been banned from the jewels? Thar could have been Kelly leaking in a “you can’t fire me, I quit ” type fashion.”

      This was my first (preferred) theory on why Meghan was never, after the tiara, loaned any of the Queen’s jewelry, even for foreign visits. They just did not want to deal with Kelly again. I also wondered if this was why they did not go to Balmoral last year (avoid both Kelly and Andy).

    • WhyAmIBeingCensored says:

      I speculate that Meghan lost a lot weight pre-wedding because of the stress of the situation with her dad.
      I can’t imagine how that felt, knowing now that everyone was also treating her as a second class person because they are racist, colonial, establishment pricks.

  31. Mrs.Krabapple says:

    ThIs is how we know the world is a misogynistic place. Whether Meghan wanted a different tiara or not (and she did NOT, but I’m saying even if she did), does not make her evil nor it is worthy of the huge amount of press that it received. And same goes for Kate wearing off white or not (and she DID) to a wedding — who really cares? Kate was not going to upstage the bride no matter what she wore. But the press acts like a woman’s jewelry or dress is such a huuuuge issue, when it’s not. And all this time, Andrew has escaped justice for rape.

    • BnLurkN4eva says:

      You are absolutely right. Sometimes we forget this because we are so busy not seeing the forest for the trees.

  32. Mary says:

    OMG, in that first photo, I never noticed before but Harry looks like he is trying so hard not to cry. Sweet.

  33. Ennie says:

    What a weird symbiotic monster the RF created with their relation with the Rota.

  34. MA says:

    lmao kaiser I wasn’t persuaded that Kate wore that shade intentionally but that was hilarious. and I have to admit it does photograph awfully white in the official portraits

  35. Likeyoucare says:

    I hope betty the petty read finding freedom book. So that she can see what her minions did to Harry and Meghan. I believe that she really dependent to her staff to take care of her family even listening and believing all the rumours pass by that evil racist kelly.

  36. Mary says:

    I don’t think this is thread jacking because the issue was briefly mentioned in this post but DW just wrote a Sun article confirming, per him, that Angela Kelly and William conspired to keep Meghan away from the Queen’s jewels. Please note that when he says Royal Collection jewels, I think he means the Queen’s private collection of jewelry:

    “The now infamous tiara row, which I first revealed in November 2018, was the culmination of many fallouts before the wedding. Afterwards, William and the Queen’s dresser and closest confidante, Angela Kelly, were united in their decision not to loan Meghan items from the Royal Collection, which included tiaras worn by Diana.”

    Dang, Angie has some kind of power, doesn’t she?! Wootton also said that as long as Harry and Meghan are together, the brothers will not be reconciled.

    This is great, we are getting more info on the twisted, evil Firm from the very people trying to defend it! Keep it coming!

    • MsIam says:

      Dang William is a petty b*tch, worrying about what jewelry Meghan wore. But to me, if this is true, Dan Wootton just confirmed the whole “William is a snob” story that the FF book laid out. And I truly believe William said some awful, nasty things about Meghan both before and after the wedding.

    • betsyh says:

      Now what reasonable excuse could they have for preventing Meghan from wearing these jewels?

      • Priscila says:

        Wooten is their mouthpiece. That he is confirming what we know also proves the narrative they are sticking to:it us ALL evil Meghan’s fault, Harry is a fool and Harry must apologize and come home.

        This shit will only fly in UK and with hysterical white women on twitter …for people like us, this only solidified the RF as a trashy lit and William as a disgusting piece of shit.

        The reason? They did not want a biracial woman, a former actress to get close to their treasures- treasures that mostly came out of colonialism and British cruel rule over its empire.

  37. Elizabeth says:

    I think it’s interesting that they name checked Angela Kelly. Not a courtier. Not a person in a grey suit…they’re calling her out loud and clear.

  38. WhyAmIBeingCensored says:

    I feel very ashamed of myself because I was only just admiring the work that went into Beatrice’s dress (which I assume was done by AK7).

    This is how they get you I guess – through the aesthetics.
    I spit on Awful Kelly’s name.
    QE2 is a mighty petty bitch who always let very small and rigid people run her. That is her legacy.

    [though I still fucking love Beatrice's dress and 'styling', damn my shallow bones]

  39. Marivic says:

    William masterminded the Sussex exit from the Royal Family with the willing assistance of the Royal Rota and Kate. They are all jealous of the star power of the Sussexes which has overtaken them. They have left but their star hasn’t dimmed no matter how much these jealous people want to dull it.