Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Meghan Markle Debuts at Audi Polo Challenge

Saturday, May 6, 2017

Well, it is Derby Day here in the states, and Gold Cup, and all such horse-related things. But across the pond it was the Saturday of the Audi Polo Challenge and a very special guest turned up at the field to cheer on her handsome prince charming. Meghan Markle made her debut in the royal box today. 


The match benefits Sentebale and WellChild, two of Harry's charities, but I bet it was more than just the cash influx for a good cause that was putting such a bright smile on Harry's face. His striking girlfriend watching from a balcony was putting a spring in everyone's step.


The annual Audi Polo Challenge has been a staple on the royal calendar, and we are used to seeing, or recently hoping to see, another royal heart-throb. The Audi Polo Challenge was played on May 10th in 2009 and Kate was there to cheer William on. The photo-set from that sunny afternoon feature some of the most famous shots of William and Kate in their dating days. 


All three royals were out together in 2012 for the Audi Polo Challenge, and goofing around just a bit, too.


Meghan joins a long quasi-royal tradition of girlfriends at the polo field. Girlfriends and royal brides... Heather over at The Fug Girls is hypothesizing that Harry and Meghan are already secretly engaged, which I think is an interesting possibility. 


Today was, in many respects, Meghan's royal debut. It is the first "public" event that the couple have attended together, and Meghan was doubtless eager to look her best. She wore a navy day dress with an asymmetrical hemline and carried a polka-dot clutch. She definitely brought the Hollywood glam:



This beautiful frock is by Antonio Berardi. It is the Double-Breasted Sleeveless Dress and is retailing at Saks right now--one sale--for $1,617. It features almost military style button closure, piping, a fitted bodice, and full skirt with the trendy cut-out and an exposed zipper. It is en vogue, kids. This girl plays to win in the fashion stakes. 



It got a little chilly, so Meghan slipped on a crisp white blazer which she left around her shoulders, rather than using the sleeves. Meghan is no Kate, and I am betting that the fashion we see from Meghan will be the type that people have been wanting from Kate, but that she just hasn't delivered. 


That is not a negative judgment. Kate and Meghan are very different women with very different styles.  You can like both, as I do, but I think many expected Kate to shift gears after her marriage and showcase Meghan's kind of style, and there was a lot of disappointment when she didn't. Interestingly, I think that these two women fit their spouse/boyfriend perfectly. William is more buttoned up and traditional, Harry is more of a wild child; Kate's style is more sedate, and Meghan's is more va va voom. It's a healthy balance. I am excited to see more of Meghan, and more of Meghan with Kate at some point. Anyway...Meghan certainly had the smile of a woman head over heels in love...and possibly hiding a sparkly in her dresser drawer? Everyone else is trying to figure out if now is the time to take a break and run for more champagne and Meghan is like, "isn't he playing magnificently?!" Great day. :)


Huge thank-you to James Whatling who has been documenting these polo days for years. It is so fun to get snaps and someone has to make the Saturday a work day for that to happen. Also, if you missed it, I wrote a full post on Kate's visit to the farm this past week, which was published this morning. That is available here






194 comments:

  1. Meghan Markle is a C-list cable network actress. Thank God Kate doesn't dress like her. I realise this is a fashion blog and everything gets reduced to this, but Meghan is going to have to do a lot of adjusting to fit into the BRF.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ha! Bitter much? At least she works, dare I say that in response to your ugly comment? What a snob you must be. It's ok to "love all things Cambridge and KP" without putting down everyone else.
      Jane made it clear there's no need for a "Kate v Meghan" ugliness.
      This is a woman who's worked hard to support herself, had nothing handed to her, and oh by the way done a lot of meaningful charity work as well.
      She has merits. Kate has merits. Stop the bullying.

      Delete
    2. Not everything is reduced to fashion around here, I just had to get that out there. Meghan is not an "A-lister' that is true, but I don't list at all--no one so much as tries to snap my photo when I head to the grocery store-- and that doesn't make me a bad person. I think it is fine if you prefer Kate's style. I like both styles, but I understand they are different and that Meghan's is out of some people's comfort zone. It seems that your issue with Meghan might be something other than fashion...

      Delete
    3. Meghan is much much loved by Suits the TV show fans. And Suits is a huge 6 season success! But there is much more to this woman than an actress, as her extensive charity work shows.
      Theresa Australia

      Delete
    4. I bet you everyone has considered how she will fit into the Royal family. No one wants to repeat the mess that was Diana. She is also lucky enough to have the help of the Cambridges who I am sure will do everything they can to make sure that the transition from working woman to daughter-in-law of the future king, is successful. Happily this is not 1935.

      Delete
    5. I find Anonoymous' logic to be puzzling. If Harry was courting an A-list actress such as Emma Stone or Jennifer Lawrence, would that be more acceptable? I think it would be even harder for them to fit into the royal family. And their fashions are way more high-end than Meghan's. I think Meghans clothing choices are right on. Mostly classic lines, but stylish and age appropriate. And by the way, you would never see Meghan in that green shirtwaist from 2012 pictured above.

      Delete
    6. I'm glad she isn't an A-list celeb. Meghan has worked hard for the career she does have. She has ALSO established herself as an educated, charitable person without it being her job requirement. She has essentially become an honorary Canadian, even though she is American. She is FAR more of an asset than bitter people like you give her credit for. I think she will gladly step into the role Harry's wife will need to. That's a huge asset for Harry - he's so lucky to have found her.
      ~ A

      Delete
    7. What a profoundly unkind and unjustified comment Anon 4:52. I'm somewhat blown away by your nastiness

      Delete
    8. Jane that last line in your response was perfect. You win the night.

      Delete
    9. These days cable TV is nothing to sneer at--many cable TV shows are more highly regarded than network TV and many fairly famous "movie" people work in cable TV.

      Delete
    10. I haven't seen the show, but have read that MM has some very explicit scenes. The BRF can't be happy about that.

      Delete
    11. Wow, 4:52. Somebody had their claws out while reading this post! Meow!

      7:06 - I have also wondered about the explicit scenes I've heard about and seen some still shots of and wondering if HM has seen those. Then again, nothing is private for the royals anymore since the paps started crossing the line into the Peeping Tom genre with their extra long lenses.

      Delete
    12. Sorry, is everyone 100?!
      I am a Suits fan and never saw anything that would remotely be called "explicit" especially in this day and age.
      Unless you also consider Kate in the lingerie fashion show explicit work!
      Don't comment till you see the show!
      The Queens seen and heard a lot worse from her own family, come on. Maybe Megan's family should worry about Harry's party history and flashing his Crown Jewels to a room of women in Vegas

      Delete
    13. Ha! That's so funny, Jane. You are an A list blogger to us!:)

      Delete
    14. Huge Suits fan too Anon 8:47 and only scene I could recall that they might be referring to was the (fantastic but steamy) library scene when Mike & Rachel first and finally 'got it on'.
      ☺️💋
      Haters gonna hate I would say. She is fantastic both as an actress and as Prince Harry's love ❤️
      Theresa Australia

      Delete
    15. Ooh that was a good one! (Hee hee!)

      But "explicit"?? Halle Berry in Monsters Ball was explicit!!! I rented it for movie night with my parents! oh my god my dad got up and left room. Shudder thinking about it! My mom was horrified it didn't have a warning (and how she got Oscar) I kinda had to agree. Meghan's done nothing close.

      Delete
    16. She has been in very suggestive scenes in at least one other show. You don't have to be 100 to have a sense of decorum.
      In the long run it might not matter: Harry is not the heir. The focus will be on William's family especially when George is older.

      Delete
    17. I would like to take a moment here to apologise for a comment I made when Meghan first came on the scene (with Harry). I said something not terribly nice based only on photos I'd seen. I've read more about Meghan and read the article she wrote about racial bias and I've changed my opinion. She seems to be thoughtful (as in thinking things through, not as in nice - she may be nice too, but that's not my point), hard working, and compassionate. I don't doubt she has many wonderful qualities. I am happy for Harry and hope this does result in marriage. Oh! And I love her dress!

      Delete
    18. There's no legit complaint that they royal family can make about anyone re: sexual mores. The King of England will be married to his decades long mistress who broke up his marriage to a beloved princess. And who he could only marry after she was tragically killed and the "laws" were changed/reinterpreted. Not to mention both had to admit to their affair in church and couldn't even have a tradional ceremony. So any BS hoopla about the RF looking down on others for loose mores - ha! The RF has written the book on loose morals.

      Breaking up a family like Camilla and Charles did, it doesn't get any lower IMO.

      Delete
    19. @ Anonymous at 4:52 PM:

      And? At least Meghan has been steadily working for years. That's way more than a lot of actresses can say. Just because she's not an A-lister doesn't mean she is worthless as a person.

      @ Anonymous at 10:09 PM:

      The Church of England was founded by a man simply because he wanted to annul his marriage and the Pope wouldn't let him. That same man then went on to have 6 wives, 2 of which he had killed, and a crap ton of mistresses. I think Charles' marital problems pale in comparison to the founder of the Church of England.

      Delete
    20. Leslie,
      We aren't talking about the founder of the Church of England. Someone was referring to the current RF taking the moral high road against Meghan because of sex scenes from her acting. In that instance, Charles and Camilla's background is relevant. BTW, Charles has said many times, after his divorce and in the lead up to his remarriage, that he wants to be a "defender of faiths" and not the head of the church. So, even he knows that he has no moral high ground anymore.

      10:09

      Delete
    21. @ Anonymous at 12:15 AM:

      The point is, literally none of the royals can talk about moral high ground considering that the founder of the CoE had 6 wives and multiple mistresses.

      Delete
    22. Even Diana had to adjust (and seemingly struggled) and she was from an aristocratic family.

      Delete
    23. 10:09 I view it as they broke up TWO families. The Wales family was more high profile (obviously) and with two young kids. I can't remember if Camilla was married for part of the affair, but I'm pretty sure she was. Point being, innocent people in both families were hurt and subject to media scrutiny. So basically I agree with your points, but just want to clarify that damage was done to more than one family.
      ~ A

      Delete
    24. Bristowmom kudos to you for looping back and sharing our change in perspective! I'm choosing to see the best in her too. I also think she was so "New on the scene", whereas we had many years to get used to Kate before they got really serious. Plus, we knew less about Kate and probably liked that she was normal. The more I learn about Meghan, too, I realize just what a fabulous match she can be for Harry!
      ~ A

      Delete
    25. Way to go bristowoman kudos for the honesty! And A just a correction that camillas husband Andrew damaged his marriage long before he was a known cheat with tons of affairs.

      Delete
    26. Diana's main problem was her husband's affair and cold, mean attitude towards her. Will and Harry (it appears) do not/will not treat their wives like that. If Diana had the love and support Kate has, she would have been fine.

      Delete
    27. Anon @7:55--Yes, Andrew Parker-Bowles was a serial cheater from the moment he married Camilla. There are even rumors that one of his mistresses was Princess Anne (they briefly dated prior to either of their first marriages). I would also say that the break-up of Charles and Diana's marriage was not all on Charles (or Camilla), Diana did her share to destroy that relationship. No innocent parties except the children.

      Delete
    28. During the time of Edward VII, a royal would only have affairs with married women. That practice had a very practical purpose-any by-blows would be legitimate fruits of the marriage and not credited to the king. There is a series based on one of Edward's mistresses in which the marriage of the intended mistress was arranged by the king with an understanding between the two men.Annonymous

      Delete
    29. 12:53-

      That's just simply not true. Diana loved Charles. Her affairs didn't start until she was well convinced that he was back with Camilla. Charles and Camilla picked the young kindergarten assistant because they thought they could control her. Then they tried to gaslight her and it didn't work.

      Delete
    30. Take a step back everyone. We weren't saying that the members of the BRF are not without their baggage (tons of it) and we weren't judging MM for whatever she chooses to do on the screen. However, we were speculating about the acceptance into Harry's world by the one person who must give her permission for him to marry. HM is a very religious and very straight laced individual. Her children embarrassed her so publicly that even she, who never says anything, commented about how horrible her year had been. I know that we would all like to think that Harry would be a romantic and "chuck it all to marry the woman he loves" but this is his family. He was born to duty and knows the heartache caused to so many people in his family by Edward VIII. Yes, all the scandals mentioned in comments above happened and, from our armchair perspective, it's easy to preach but, in reality, they live in a different world that we cannot really comprehend. It all rests on HM who, I might add, turns to Prince Phillip on family matters. PP is not a forgiving, warm and fuzzy person. If he doesn't like you then you're toast.

      Delete
    31. Charles had the same "choice" issues some are trying to project onto Prince Harry now. Camilla was the love of his life from the start, but the Firm steered him away from her, as she was deemed inappropriate (and unattractive).

      The Firm agenda was for Charles to marry into the Spencer family, to re-introduce legitimate Stewart/Tudor lineage into the BRF, and fix their unpopularity being viewed as foreign (German & Greek) blood. Mission accomplished, but at the cost of Diana's life. Prince Charles was determined to get back to the love of his life, and that mission was accomplished too.

      I believe the lesson was learned. Those Firm restrictions on a Royal's life have been lifted as a result of this tragedy. It's great Prince Charles was at last allowed his happiness, and I'm glad Prince Harry is also being allowed to choose his route to happiness. That picture of him smiling on his horse, says it all.

      And I love Meghan's dress!

      Belle

      Delete
    32. Excuse me, but with Harry by her side she is already in the "A" list.

      Delete
    33. Absolutely, Jolanta. I can's think of any hostess, at least in the US and maybe Canada, who would turn them down. They're welcome at my house anytime. Ha! In fact, they both seem like they would be fascinating guests, royal or not.---:+]-- Annonymous

      Delete
    34. Exactly, Jolanta! What a sweet post.

      And what many fail to realize, William and Harry are it. They are in their 30s and, besides Charles, they will be the power in the RF. No one else. That power will be extended to their wives.

      Delete
  2. I think that's a great dress, and that Meghan will be more of a fashionista than Kate Cambridge who has to play it "safe" as a future Queen. Of course MM is also independently wealthy so hopefully there won't be the same scrutiny of her choices, and what they cost. I really hope this is the one for Harry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Meghan has sought out the spotlight, Kate didn't. Harrybisbfurther down the line of succession now, giving him and his future wife more freedom to be themselves.
      ~ A

      Delete
    2. First, I absolutely love this dress and the accessories. For me, it doesn't get better than navy and white in the spring and summer and this choice is crisp and stunning.

      I do agree with Margaret regarding Kate's need to play it safe. History dictates this strategy. ;-) As far as MM being "independently wealthy", well, no doubt she has a good paycheck, but being independently wealthy (in my mind) suggests that she is set for life. Not so sure about that...

      There's one other factor to consider here...it must be daunting for *anyone* to walk into that "circle" and I think Meghan may feel obligated (as an American) to prove that she fits in. In the end, however, it is the common values they share that will ensure their success as a couple and not the clothes in her closet.

      Delete
    3. I think this dress is brilliant and it's nice to see Harry so happy. I'm still skeptical about this relationship. Too much, too soon.

      I agree, royalfan, she isn't independently wealthy. She's currently wealthy but she couldn't stop working today and live her current lifestyle for the rest of her life. I also think she will have much to prove in the traditional British circles because she's an American. There are still some attitudes (no matter how many of us are complete anglophiles) in Britain that we are "the colonies" and "spoiled Americans" to boot. I could tell you some very interesting stories about a group of people I had to work with on a US/UK charitable campaign. Let's just say that they had very definite opinions about how "dreadful" we "horrid" Americans are.

      Delete
    4. Robin I hope it isn't too much too soon. I'm trying to factor in their age, the work Harry has been doing on himself (therapy etc) and Meghan learning from her first marriage. When you know you know, and with their past experiences they may have know early on "this is it" and they just have to negotiate how to pave their paths together. I want long term happiness and contentedness for Harry so I hope they both have the stick-to-itness to remain committed.

      Living across "the pond" they have to be serious to make the effort required to make that distance work. If I weren't seeing this kind of effort I would think they're wasting each other's time.

      Regarding her being an American (and mixed race) this is unusual in Harry's circle. We saw what Kate has gone through and she is Caucasian British and her parents do have money (just not old family money, with old family titles and old family royal connections). Meghan has had to have gone through Hollywood's rejection and criticism, and she seems very gregarious. While we can't deny she is human and has feelings, she may have thicker skin than we realize.

      ~ A

      Delete
    5. I, too, thought it was too much too soon and I was not impressed with the social media "hints" or the awkward grocery run that contradicted Harry's request for privacy and respect. But I will say that the girl is a quick study; she switched gears rather quickly and I respect the low profile.

      The bottom-line for me is that I want Harry to be happy and have someone in his corner through thick and thin. Right now, they are high on love, but reality will not be path lined with rose petals. Having a supportive husband (we are assuming this will happen) will make a difference, but it still will be a difficult adjustment for Meghan. IMO.

      Delete
    6. Awkward grocery run??? She was in a baseball hat and heavy coat!!! Hardly trying to grab attention. Wow.

      It would have been better if she stayed at KP on her bum and let staff shop?? I find your comments about Meg to be nitpicking and blatantly looking for any excuse to force blame on her. I mean, the shopping?? I even think she walked from KP to the store, not going in a caravan of security cars. What the heck made it awkward? Because paps followed her? That's her fault? She was in a baseball hat. Hardly a glamour shot.

      Clearly, you just don't like her.

      Delete
    7. Do you know Meghan royalfan or are you just assuming what she thinks, how she feels and what her relationship with Harry really is? Do you know Harry and does he tell you what he did or did not know what going on with any "social media hints" or grocery runs? Do you think so poorly of Harry that you assume he is so easily taken in and fooled by a woman rather than being self-aware enough to make decisions about his own relationships?

      Delete
    8. With all due respect, 12.23, I'm sorry that you chose to zoom in on that one statement and dismiss the part where I acknowledged that she has changed her approach AND that I respect it.

      Delete
    9. Anon 12:23/12:49: look, Just wanted to pop over and say that the points you are making are fine, you are certainly allowed to come in and express your perspective on Meghan, but you are expressing yourself pretty aggressively for this space. You posted three comments in a row, these two and a third, all as fast-firing string of questions that kind of took me aback, even though I actually agree with some of your points. I held your remarks last night and this morning. I approved them this morning, but I just want to let you know that from where I sit they came across as very aggressive, and I would prefer a calmer exchange. So, there was nothing wrong with your points, but I do ask you to rephrase and approach this a little differently if you continue to comment, because it's just a little too hard-charging for this space, which might not be what you meant for your comments to be at all, but...I wanted to let you know that is how they sound on this end. Thanks!

      Delete
    10. There have been some pretty aggressive comments toward Meghan too Jane. I understand why people are fired up in response.
      No different than the responses would be from Kate fans if similar comments were published. For instance, look at the first comment you allowed. If someone jumped in and said "Kate's a mere commoner from a council house family" or something equally belittling would you have allowed it?

      I'm a different anon apologies for jumping in but just wanted to point that out. There's a little too much eagerness to bash this woman if you ask me.

      Delete
    11. Hi Jane: Anon 12:23 wasn't me. But point taken. I will watch my tone for any future comments. Anon 12:49.

      Delete
    12. Hi Jane,
      I'm 12:23. I'm not 12:49 though. I think you once said that you can see the cities we come from? If you check that, you should see we are different posters.

      And royalfan... saying that Meghan has changed her approach after attacking for grocery trip... ugh. There was nothing wrong with her grocery trip, by you saying she "changed her approach", that's really just slamming her backhanded.

      Anon 12:23

      Delete
    13. I see what cities are reading, I don't connect IP addresses to comments. Some blogs do, mine does not.
      Anon 8:24, there have been unflattering comments about Meghan, yes, and I think it is fine to rebut those should you choose to do so, but stick to the argument about Meghan, not attacking fellow readers. An aggressive series of questions, rather than say an aggressive series of statements, comes across more as an attack on the other reader, rather than an attack on their opinion. I agree with a lot of the responses--I don't think the walk to the grocery store was inappropriate, but we can have the same debate in a lot of different ways and I am asking that we do so by addressing the other points and doing so in a less incendiary manner. The same series of points in a statement rather than a question format would be less provocative.
      Sorry if I attributed multiple comments to one person, they sounded similar in tone, but I guess a lot of you feel strongly about this. I don't blame you, I just want the debate to be calm.

      Delete
    14. anon 12:23, 10:17- just curious. How do you know anon 8:54,12:49 is from a different city than you?
      Actually-posting from two different cities is easy-I work in one town and commute home to another, using different computer, phone. Or I am visiting family, friend in another town and borrow a phone. Or family is visiting me and I borrow a phone.Or I have a phone with one ISP and a computer with another.
      But really, how did you know you came from different cities?Annonymous

      Delete
    15. Meghan stopped dropping hints about her relationship on social media and, most recently, shut down her blog. If that doesn't qualify as a change in her approach in your book then let's just agree to disagree.

      Delete
    16. I don't know if Anon 12:27 is from a different city. I just know she isn't me. Anon 8:54.

      Delete
    17. anon 1: I have no idea what city Anon 12:23 is in but I'm not her. Anon 12:49.

      Delete
    18. It would stand to reason that two different posters on this blog are from different cities. I am sure they are even from other states. Not exactly rocket science. And it sounds like this ques. was from RoyalFan.

      And it wasn't from curiosity that it was asked, it was basically calling anon 12:23 a liar, which is a sad, petty thing to do.

      Many people commented on RF's post about Meghan. It upset people. People from different cities. That's the truth. There is no conspiracy to use different phones, computers, etc. Please. It was a rude comment that got a lot of responses.



      Delete
    19. Absolutely incorrect. I post as ROYALFAN and only ROYALFAN which is precisely what makes me such an easy target.

      Funny, this is a subject I raised elsewhere recently so the personal comments directed at me are not a shock...at all. 😊

      Delete
    20. Royalfan is really good at defending herself but I am going to jump in here and say that I doubt that comment was from her. The writing style is completely different and, actually, very much like an anon that posts on here frequently. Also, just would like to add that her original comment was not rude. That is her opinion and various opinions is what this comment section is all about. Her opinion is as valid as yours even if you can not agree. Lastly, for what it's worth, I happen to agree with RF, so she's not the only one on this blog with that outlook.

      Delete
    21. Faith, you are a class act. I appreciate your support. Thank you.

      And, yes, it is a different yet familiar style. Not my business, but the replies should be addressed accordingly.

      Delete
    22. Anytime ☺ This fellow poster bashing is getting out of hand.

      Delete
    23. It's not bashing. People are finally standing up for themselves and not allowing the 4-5 that post under names to push others out.

      I also believe that anon was from RF. I have seen it happen before. She's upset so many took issue with her comments and wanted to insinuate it was all coming from one person.

      Delete
    24. royalfan-I just wrote a very long comment which fortunately got lost. I just want to state that I wrote AND SIGNED the comment in question, 4:47, and I think ascribing it to you might have been meant as an attempt to further the dissention. There really is no mystery here.
      I also discussed the reasons why I no longer use a consistent moniker-partly because at least one commenter here was targeting me by name.
      Royalfan, I usually agree with you and find your comments generally fair, intelligent, and concise. I have agreed with and supported you over the years on Kate blogs because of this.
      I'm not one for fawning remarks to gain approval. I obviously say what I mean and mean what I say. Unfortunately, I have been given credit for a number of remarks on another blog which I never made. The administrator of that blog is well aware that I did not make remarks reportedly made but edited from publishing. I can't even begin to describe how the unfairness of being blamed not only for those comments but also for bullying other commenters has affected me. The only thing I did was disagree consistently when several of the regular commenters consistently made unfair, unkind, or unsubstantiated remarks about Kate and family. Now William seems to have become a focus as well for them.
      Maybe that is why I object so strongly about unfair, unsubstantiated comments about Kate and family here. And why I wrote this comment directed to you, royalfan. ---:+] ANNonymous---how I signed that comment (4:47)


      Delete
    25. I think this comment underscores a few things. One, let's try not to overthink who is writing what. If someone uses a monkiker, great. If you consistently use a moniker, like Anon1 or Royalfan or CrazyforKate, and you see someone post under your usual name, just post politely underneath and clarify it isn't your comment, assume the person is new and not a troll, and maybe even gently suggest a new moniker to avoid confusion. ONLY the party whose name appears to have been hijacked should be involved. This forum cannot survive with a dozen police officers guessing and hypothesizing on whether a comment is or is not genuine. Again, and this is important to the whole anonymous debate...address the substance of the post, not the writer. If someone wants to develop a relationship, they will. Otherwise, assume good faith all around and don't try to connect voices or styles or "suspicious" behavior. I think everything will be smoother if we all stay positive and welcoming and stick to royal watching.

      Delete
    26. Jane-you make some good points. I would like to add a point that you were probably too diplomatic or kind to include: my 4:47 comment was not that different from what I described had happened to me on another blog. Or actually from comments made about Kate and her family. I think I lost my blog innocence after that experience. The thought that I may have falsely accused someone prompts me to apologize and request that my 4:47 comment be removed; as Jane said she would remove a commenter-directed remark in a recent post-so I assume it can be done.

      I am reminded of the saying that Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I also think Ugliness is in the eye of the beholder. That seems to be how Jane sees things.
      The anonymous situation is different for me. I think most internet users are aware that blog comments become a permanent part of cyberspace, once published. That means a person using a consistent moniker can be looked up just like we google famous people. I don't mind taking responsibility for my remarks in a given post.
      I just don't know if I want my remarks to stay with me until the end of time.--:+]-

      I have seen both on this blog and another how a barrage of incendiary anonymous comments can disrupt an otherwise enjoyable discussion. It is difficult to ignore remarks that seem focused on tearing down rather than building up.
      I think the answer for me is if such behavior continues here my remedy will have to be choosing another way to enjoy Kate and her family.
      I understand they are looking for a second nanny.---;+}----Annonymous

      Delete
    27. ANNonymous, I do understand where you're coming from. No worries.

      Jane, I do appreciate your comments in this thread. It's true that I consistently post as royalfan (even when I have used a different computer where I prefer to use the name/URL option rather than signing in to my Google account). And I stand by my comment here @11:29.

      For the record, however, going forward I will go back to strictly using my Google account -- without exception. If you have the ability/time/desire to ID my comments, please feel free to do so at anytime...past, present or future. :-)

      I have no problem with disagreements, debates, or being told that I sound like a broken record (it may have happened once...or twice!) but I will NOT be accused of engaging in the very same games that I have zero respect for. Enough said.

      Delete
    28. I'm confused royalfan. What games are you talking about?

      Delete
    29. 9:52, 2:54- you wrongly accused royalfan. Apology, anyone? Annonymous

      Delete
    30. Thanks for continuing to act as self-appointed hall monitor Annonymous/anon1

      Delete
  3. You nailed it Jane this is GLAM! And it looks like it comes so easy to her, just hanging out here looking AMAZING. Bring it on is all I can say, I didn't realize how parched I was for real fashion till i saw this. I feel like saying buckle up cos this is going to be fun!
    Jane I know you are jam packed but curious if you're considering a Meghan blog?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lol! I decided I must be hard pressed for some great fashion too because I was so excited to see this and so far Meghan hasn't excited me all that much. It really is a fabulous dress and it was perfectly styled here.

      Delete
  4. Dating for less than a year and she's made an appearance - another confirmation of how serious they are! I am so happy for Harry.

    I have been toying with the idea that they are already engaged, too - something which probably makes them both feel secure while she wraps up her contract and he has work too. I think meghan would have to be VERY confident to start detaching herself from her current profession. Rumour has it a trip is being lined up for them in the late Fall to visit Harry's African charities. To me that sounds like a trip for after an engagement. W&K timed their engagement and engagement announcement around BRF demands (and her work contract), why not H&M?!

    As for fashion, I agree with you, Jane! Two different couples! Since the wedding we've seen Kate embrace collared shirts under a sweater, which I have always felt was a William/future Queen thing. I also still love a lot of what Kate wears. I can love both these women.

    I can't wait to see Kate interacting with Meghan! I hope Kate doesn't shy away from that and they just have a good laugh over that media frenzy ;-)

    ~ A

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks for the update, Jane. I always enjoyed seeing pics of Kate at the polo, so I'm really excited to see Meghan make her debut, at last! I appreciate the different fashion tastes of both women, but I particularly like Meghan's crisp, chic look here. The glasses and clutch are cute! & Harry looks happy to have his girl amongst the spectators ;)

    ReplyDelete
  6. I love this girl! The new Grace Kelly of our generation. Country Kate and Glammy Meghan love them both!

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm enjoying the Megan pictures. She's an actress, looks it, and may want to have a career in case the Firm doesn't pan out or isn't her thing. I wonder if Kate will go more towards more high effort glamour when her youngest turns 5? It seems easy to forget how much effort goes into children when doing a good job of raising them. Even with full time help there's easily 80-120 hours worth of interaction to be done and the energy output of doing it well is enormous! Her style of late has reflected a desire for ease which is really important to a modern liberated mom and reflects her own taste rather than what focus groups liked. Her look is a lovely option in the celeb fashion universe that is mostly effortful and professionally styled. There is always the latest issue of In Style for that! One reason for this blog we love is that Kate's look is just a little different and special, tasteful overall and personal when it's not. I will forever be grateful to her for her role in bringing back dresses with sleeves. There was an entire 20 years with no sleeves! Some of what she gets the most criticism for as "aging" is actually what the younger girls are choosing--lots of 70s dresses, florals, warm muddy colors, etc. Sometimes trying too hard to look "young" is what is aging because it reflects what looks young to ppl who aren't rather than really embracing a younger approach. The younger girls grew up with tons of skin on view everywhere; those sleeveless years were their whole visual reality. The midis and the sleeves can seem more fresh and different and liberated to them as one option among many.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I musy say I find her a bit 'fishy'... A celebrity with charity works that have been proven to be nonexistent or for PR (like Her trip to India this year that was canceled, etc), that wrote the statement revealling their relationship and released by KP, that has been known to call the paps, all in a few months? I don't know... Too much too soon. I honestly don't think she's right for him and that he's rushing it because of their age, but I certainly don't want a Duchess Meghan.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 9:00 I don't think your statements are factual. You may find Meghan to be "fishy' for some reason known to yourself but your stated reasons are not true. Meghan's charity work has not proven to be untrue, her trip to India happened on a different date than the press originally publicized, Meghan did not write the statement Harry released about their relationship and she is not known to call the paparazzi. Where did you get this stuff?

      Delete
    2. lol, what are you talking about? Nonexistent charity work and writing the KP statement? If you don't like Meghan, just say so but no reason to make up stories about her

      Delete
    3. How is it relevant at all whether or not you want a Duchess Meghan?! Does Harry ask your permission to date? Does the BRF consult you on who may join their family? Does the Queen look tonyoubfor guidance on the titles she bestows? Do you even actually know these people?!

      Delete
    4. It is relevant because I'm British and I'm the one that economically supports the family. She DID write the statement - look at how she used to write in the Tig and it's the same thing, also, KP rarely releases such large statements or so dramatic ("this is not a game, it's their life"). It was clear she wrote it.

      Delete
    5. Give it up already. So the Duchy of Cornwall is just peanuts right?
      Also it's "who" economically supports... "that'" is a typically American mistake.

      Delete
    6. I thought the statement about Meghan sounded (in spots) an awful lot like the long, fairly blistering statement KP released demanding privacy for George and noting the possibility of photographers being shot.(That was pretty dramatic, I'd say!) I agree there was **some** "American" type phrasing in both (as there has been in other KP announcements over the last few yrs) but I attributed that to Jason. None of us can know for sure who wrote either the George statement or the Meghan statement but it's a sure bet Meghan had no input into the statement about George released long before she met Harry.

      Delete
    7. 11:39, you may be right. That or their PR,I don't remember the name, Jason? he is American and also writes long emotional letters, like the one about the paparazzi shots of the children.

      Delete
    8. KP has PR advisors here in the US that work on everything for them. A friend of mine had them as a client several years ago. (She worked for the firm retained by them.)

      Let's just say the public knows only 1% of everything that goes on with this family and, honestly, they are nothing to be admired.

      I think she should write a book, a la Anna Wintour's assistant. We'll see, fingers crossed.

      Delete
  9. "Charity work that's non-existent" ??? Where do you get that. Nice try (again)

    ReplyDelete
  10. While I don't like this dress personally (not many buttons), I think it looks good on Meghan, and the blue dress with white jacket is a cute polo look. Very sophisticated but still summery.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This whole look is fantastic...the dress is gorgeous and fits perfectly, and the accessories are totally on point! You can tell Meghan really enjoys fashion and feels comfortable. Even though Kate's style is different than Meghan's she could do with a little more sophistication every now and then - even for her position, Kate's style can be a bit too conservative and too old for her. Diana was married to the heir to the throne and still managed to dress with more style than Kate does.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Definitely agree with your comment about Diana being fashionable while married to the heir. I definitely believe Kate's style is based primarily on her personal taste and reserved temperament. Would be great if her fans would stop trying to pressure her to "shake things up" for their own pleasure (sigh).
      For this reason, Meghan will be a welcomed addition for royal fans who like Kate's gentleness, reserve and calm but also crave more fashion and fun.
      I wish Harry and Meghan the best and look forward to seeing them working together on their African charities and touring the Caribbean commonwealth.

      Delete
    2. Agree. Beautiful look. No remarks about button placement.--;+]--.(Kate's white dress in India and at least one other, for example.) Perhaps the critics will continue to cut Ms. Merkle some slack.Annonymous

      Delete
    3. Had the button placement been questionable, I would have said something but its fine here.

      Delete
    4. The pockets on Kate's white dress in India and the buttons on her Carolina Herrera coat debuted in Canada and reworn recently have a very different placement than the buttons on Meghan's dress. The buttons on Meghan's dress remind of of other pieces Kate has worn that do not have the button placement "issue", including some of her military-inspired coats.

      Delete
    5. Look again. Same placement area. Different person. Different judgement. In that one picture I thought they were pasties, at first. Her dress is dark and the buttons aren't visible in some photos, but the button placement is exactly the same. I think those people didn't mention it because they weren't looking for something to criticize this time. I noticed it because it reminded me of the very ungracious and lengthy discussions of Kate's buttons on what were really lovely garments.
      Meghan is a gorgeous, sophisticated, seemingly delightful woman. There are problems to be worked out but they have plenty of help to unravel things and work it out. There is no need to assume she will be mistreated just because some jerks on tabloid comment sections entertain themselves by throwing trash at someone who isn't there to call them out. ---:+[---Annonymous

      Delete
    6. Is this a tabloid comment section Annomymous?

      Delete
    7. Of course, people like different outfits, annonymous. But even when I enlarge the picture of Meghan's navy dress the rows of smallish buttons look fine. The individual buttons seem to hit her "above and below" just like the ones on Kate's green St. Pat's coat this yr. The oversized buttons on Kate's  red CH coat are placed "spot on" just like the points of the faux pockets on the white dress from the India tour. So the latter two outfits seemed decidedly odd and not very attractive to me.

      Delete
    8. Huh? Anon 8:26 the 5th photo in the article seems to be of Kate running with her shirtdress threatening to cling/ride up probably from static. There aren't even 5 photos of Meghan in the article.  Maybe you mean the 5th photo of the dress, not of Meghan wearing the dress? (The photos of the model?) If so, that seems to be sort of a pointless  criticism. We've all tried on clothes that fit us differently than they did a model (like with internet shopping :) So it seems in judging Meghan's appearance we'd look at HER in the dress not at the model instead. But if we do look at the model, in the first picture (the only photo that shows the buttons clearly) the first button is in line horizontally with the bottom of the model's armpit--that's where the first button seems to hit Meghan in the 2nd photo of her. I admit that at my age gravity has affected my girls but my, ah, nipples never lined up horizontally with my armpits! So I don't think that high a button poses a placement problem.The next button down is too low to hit the model or Meghan awkwardly and looks too low to even hit me wrong. It's possible the buttons on Kate's red coat hit a model in a less awkward place but that too seems beside the point.

      Delete
    9. The buttons are right above her chest Anon 8:26. Nothing awkward there at all. Kate's buttons on the red coat were right in the middle, right on top!! Also, with the white dress in India the chest placement wasn't so much the issue but the shape of the bottom of those pockets or tabs was. They were arrow shaped and pointing straght down! Super duper awkward!

      Delete
    10. I think the point that Kate's appearance was minutely criticized has been well-illustrated now, while any slightest critique (although made only to illustrate a point) of Meghan's outfit brings a vigorous and rather convoluted defense-in fact, some refuse to see what is right in front of you. Photo six on this post, by the way. She's not that old. It is interesting the photos before and after that photo were noted- but the one in question-the one where she is standing between the two and holding her purse up- was skipped over.---:+]----Annonymous--
      ps-"above the chest" would put the buttons some where near her neck or clavicle. The arm pit area is a cut out, not a usual arm area. It dips downward and inward.

      Delete
    11. Regardless of age, Annonymous, no human woman's nipples line up on a horizontal plane with the bottom of her visible underarm when viewed from the front (i.e., they don't line up with the visible junction of the arm and body) If they did, we'd all be showing bare cleavage in crew neck t-shirts!

      The two Kate looks that were mentioned here (initially mentioned by you!) didn't require careful or micro-analysis to see the awkwardness--in fact it was hard not to see it. IMO those outfits have no resemblance to this dress nor do they resemble any of Kate's other outfits. Still it is quickly becoming apparent that to some posters, liking Meghan's dress on this one occasion is somehow being disloyal to Kate. That makes no sense to me. It also doesn't make sense to me that saying--as you did-- Meghan appeared to be "wearing pasties" (seeming to imply it's fine to compare her to a stripper/sex worker) is just a "minor criticism" when compared to the more major criticism of saying the large buttons on Kate's designer coat were very awkwardly placed. Really? Perhaps you used that insulting language about Meghan to try to start a fight Annon but that doesn't seem consistent with the stated aims of this blog or with your contention no one has said anything negative about Meghan. Certainly people can like both Kate and Meghan's styles. (And no, I didn't skip over the purse photo. That is photo #2 of Meghan and that's the one I mentioned comparing in my comment to photo #1 of the model.)

      Delete
    12. Anon 2:34 the photo that you are referring to is the one I was referring to in my 10:43 reply. Meghan's buttons are not pointing downward like an arrow to her breasts nor are they right smack dab on her nipples. If Meghan ever wears something like that I will say something but she clearly is not.

      Delete
  12. If kate would wear a couple thousand pound dress to a polomatch she would have been slaughtered. I find it all a bit LOOK at me if i am honest. I much prefer kate's style if i am honest. Kate is no clothes horse, she said it herself many times. People don't listen or don't want to listen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Have you seen the price tag of Kate's wardrobe this year? And the designer dresses she's worn toneven "simple" engagements! Everyone WAS going be looking at her she had to deliver.

      Delete
    2. It was a look at me monent. Yes Kate would've been crucified. People would've complain she was spending taxpayers money. That dress might been a freebie in exchange for promo

      Delete
    3. I don't remember complaints about costs to the taxpayer of Kate's clothes prior to her marriage. I think Meghan looks great. I like high-lo hems that are dramatic enough so it's clear its not just a poor hemming job or the wear's odd posture. Whether she paid full price for the dress from her own earnings, got it on sale, borrowed it from a friend, or got it on discount for promo purposes, certainly no one thinks the bill went to Charles/the taxpayer, do they?


      While Kate may not have worn an expensive dress to polo, she HAS worn some outrageously expensive clothes. The costs tend to register with me when the designer "fit and finish" details seem more consistent with low-cost off-the-rack clothes (pattern matching problems especially),  when the price of a plain design of synthetic fabric seems enormously inflated & based purely on brand/designer, or when the new item seems almost identical to another item we've seen Kate wear. Certainly I'd expect Kate to wear expensive things and I'd not expect Meghan to wear "cheap" stuff either if she can afford better.

      Delete
  13. If you don't like Meghan, then there is no pressure to read this entry or comment. Moving on, I like her style. She and Kate have different tastes in fashion and that is perfectly acceptable and normal! I think Meghan is a breathe of fresh air but that is no disparagement on Kate.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I wish Harry much joy, he deserves to find happiness. If Meghan is the one, that is great. No one should compare her to Kate. They are two distinctly different women.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do like her dress and jacket. A very chic look.

      Delete
  15. She has a nice style not fan of the high-low dresses at times. Where are the pics of her and Harry if this a public debut?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Good morning from the United States, ladies. What an unexpected delight to see pictures of Meghan's first "official" function. Those of us who follow the Royals and understand their system realize how significant this outing is. The message most definitely is that Meghan and Harry will be walking down the aisle, most likely quite soon. I do agree that there is a strong chance they are already privately engaged and that this outing was done in the hopes to reduce some of the media attention at Pippa's wedding which Meghan most certainly will be attending. What fun it will be to follow both Meghan and Kate. Meghan's dress was gorgeous and spot on for the polo event. I am a bit concerned as to how the British upper circles will truly welcome this confident lady, Harry will pave the road but that helps only on the surface. Being American I truly do not know what that is like across the pond. I do believe her age, life experiences, and time as an actress in front of the cameras will give her great assistance in dealing with all of the adjustments. Hopefully she and Harry will embrace their roles, feel honored to have the opportunity to "work" for the British people, and not continually battle and resent the media. I wish to warm up to Kate and William, but his attitude of reluctance and resentment at his position, and his strong antipathy towards all media come strongly through.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I must disagree that this outing makes it definite that Harry and Meghan will be walking down the aisle. He and Chelsy went to sporting events together as did he and Cressida. Five years with the former and two years with the latter. I think the assumption that he and Meghan will marry is because he's older now and he has said he'd like to start a family. That was probably true before but not verbalized. In these relationships nothing makes anything certain until an announcement is made. If MM is Harry's choice I hope they are very happy but, until the palace makes an announcement, it's certainly not a done deal. If rumors were true Kate would have had a child a year - or two given the twin rumors. Her coat puckered at Christmas and the whole place went wild just sure baby Cambridge #3 was on the way.

      Delete
    2. I will bet you, Robin, that they are engaged. Everything points to that. It's more than rumor. Stopping her lifestyle blog after three years, quitting her Canadian clothing line - oh, it's a done deal. What shall we cyber wager?

      Daphne

      Delete
  17. Jean from LancsMay 7, 2017 at 6:21 AM

    Miss Markle looks every inch the royal consort. I cannot help but think that her presence in the Royal Box yesterday, means that someone really has given the nod of approval.
    Their relationship has been common knowledge for long enough for those who have the duty to object if they think her unsuitable (HM; the Prime Minister; the Archbishop of Canterbury) to make their objections known.
    Like Catherine, Miss Markle is better educated than previous royals consorts, as well as being good looking and well dressed (though I personally dislike the uneven hems--but that's me).
    If she is Prince Harry's choice, then I wish them a long and happy life and please another royal wedding, before I am literally too old to enjoy the fun.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Ha! Jean. We're on the same page. I would so love to see William and Catherine's coronation, but not going to happen. At my age and health status, I am happy to see just one more Kate engagement. That I may live to see Harry happy with a proper life-companion looks possible. ---:+]---anon1

    ReplyDelete
  19. The gentleman with the red hair next to MM is Mark Dyer, a long-term key figure/mentor in PH's life. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4071436/Prince-Harry-s-pub-drinks-friend-mentor-Meghan-Markle-wraps-against-freezing-temperatures-ocean-away.html

    ReplyDelete
  20. She looked wonderful in the dress. It appears serious and they are both old enough to figure that out pretty quickly and to also want to move things along if they want kids. I have plenty of friends who met, got engaged and were pregnant within a year of meeting once they were at that mid thirties mark. The biggest issue for them is not having spent extended time together on a day to day basis. Long distance relationships, especially ones that have always been long distance are tricky as you are always spending time together in a more"vacation" "Special Occasion' type setting.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Meghan's dress is lovely--perhaps in the style range of Kate's Preen dress. I don't find that Kate and Meghan's styles are all that different, except that Meghan, as an actress, wears shorter and tighter dresses than Kate. I think we'll find, if they marry, that Meghan's style will grow a tad more conservative and Kate will be freer to take a few more chances. Their ultimate roles, however, will dictate how far they can go fashion-wise, and Kate is slated to be queen, so her style will have to be less daring.
    What seems very sad, as one can see from the comment section of newspapers like the Daily Mail yesterday, is that the virulence of the hatred that savaged Kate on the class issue before her marriage is emerging through racism in the case of Meghan. It forced Kate into a more classic style of dressing so she could fit in and unfortunately may do the same for Meghan's style as she tries to fit in.
    It is also true that Harry will not have the income that is open to William, who will have the ample income from the Duchy of Cornwall one his father is king. He will be seen then as being supported by the taxpayers and that may also have an impact on Meghan's wardrobe.
    It's not easy being a princess, or dressing like one. It looks to me, however, as if Kate can be source of support and strength for Meghan as (if) she enters royal like and that comparisons between them in the press may sell newspapers but are hardly helpful. Both are strong, beautiful and fashionable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said, Lisa. I agree with everything, especially the last sentence.

      Delete
    2. Harry is very wealthy. With my financial background I would guess that each prince has close to 100 million from Diana. Her estate was about 20 million US dollars. That has most likely not been touch hardly, if at all. Over 20 years and with the world' best moneyrunners handling it, it is a large pot for each. Of course, even that can be spent quickly in London. But there's a lot of things (cars, trips) the royals never pay for, so that will help.

      Of course, you are right that William will get the Duchy money. But I wonder, since there are only two siblings, will he support (partially) Harry and his family in some way? Charles continues to pay for W, K, and H with the Duchy funds. They are well into adulthood. I am betting that doesn't change once Harry marries as it didn't for William. Remember when KP literally came out and said that Charles was paying for Amer Hall's refurbishment, something to the effect of helping out a young couple... when, of course, that young couple has millions in the bank.

      Delete
  22. Because of their ages, I believe Harry and Meghan are both looking for "The One". And they may have found it! If this relationship didn't have substance, it would've quickly died out last year. Both of them have the life experiences to know themselves more and to know when something's not working... Hopefully, this relationship will prove to last. Here's hoping they are happy together for a very long time!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Oh, Jane. Both women are so glamorous, what's not to envy? Although if I'm honest, I am jealous of Kate's family and Meghan's successful career in an industry she loves more that either prince. One thing both have in common is a great sense of self. Kate seems to get her confidence from her mother and has always seemed to posses a deep sense of her own value. Meghan exudes such consciousness and self-awareness even as she evolves. Two very different women who posses something neither parents - Charles nor Diana, nor even their sons really have. Harry and William (and C + D) have shown confidence, ego, cockiness but rarely that inner strength of knowing who they are even as they evolve like Kate and Meghan. Perhaps that's why they are drawn to them?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I love Kate's family too. Although I'm younger, I admire Carole most of all. She did a great job with her family AND her business. She must be a great Mom.:)

      Delete
    2. I couldn't agree more - of all the women ever mentioned on this blog, I admit Carole is the most interesting to me. :-)

      Delete
    3. I think my affection for Carole reached its zenith when she wore her grubbies and never mind hair and make-up to entertain her grandson in the park. She dresses impeccably when the occasion requires, but does not seem to feel the need to keep up an image. I guess unpretentious is the word I am looking for.---:+]---Annonymous

      Delete
    4. I think Carole is wonderful and people who give her a hard time - ugh! There is no way she targeted William for her daughter. They fell in love. I wish she could tell more of her story (the business),I know she most likely won't.

      There was an interesting article about a year after Pippa's book came out. A journalist was attending the local Bucklebury (sp?) pub who was having a small party and signing for the book. Pip, Carole, and Michael were there. The journalist was going around talking to people and Carole just introduced herself, before she knew who he was. It was hilarious. She kept telling him she was having hot flashes, fanning herself, and opening the pub windows, poor lady. She asked about him, was very kind, funny... of course it all stopped when he said who he was. But the article was very positive and Carole came across as a fun, warm, caring person. I am sure that's why William loves them. I think it was in the DM.



      Anon 7:00

      Delete
  24. Ps. I just commented aononymously - and I want to add that I like when Kate's still is a little "J. Crew" or her hair is sausage curls instead of blown out. And, I like that Meghan was married before. Gives the rest of us hope if even a princess or soon-to-be princess don't always get it right and still manage to come out on top. :)

    ReplyDelete
  25. So you think that Kensington PALACE accepted and published a letter written by a random woman dating Prince harry? ����‍♀️

    ReplyDelete
  26. I am not a frequent commenter on this blog, but I am a faithful reader. So so many commenters are Anonymous and I am wondering if some or all of them would consider assigning themselves a screen name. Just a unique, made-up name to avoid confusion would be helpful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes I agree - or do as I do and sign off each time:
      Theresa, Australia 🤗
      So simple and I definitely want to put my name to my thoughts - I barely see the point in commenting otherwise- own your words friends!

      Delete
    2. I know there has been a real push to do away with anonymous commenting on other blogs, and I am fine with people wanting more identification to connect comments, etc. I enjoy that some of my readers use names, because it enables me to form a better picture of the person and it enables "cyber friendships" which is nice. At the same time, I am adamant that anonymous commenting is perfectly welcome here. I don't want anyone to feel they need to identify themselves or connect their comments in any way if that isn't his/her cup of tea. Mystery remarks are welcome.

      Delete
    3. Jane I really thank you for allowing (and defending) anonymous posters. Because of my job I both really enjoy my "escape" to this blog and cannot ever post under anything but anonymous. Thanks!

      Delete
  27. I feel it's likely that Meghan is provided with freebies through her job and that many o her clothes and accessories come to her in the hopes that they'll be worn and promote the brand. Take a look through the number of thousand dollar purses she owns (many.) and then compare that with what has been seen of the inside of her quite homey and small apartment in Toronto. Suits isn't exactly Friends and I think she makes good enough money but not enough to blow an episodes whole check on some Mulberry bags or n Erdem dress to be worn once for a wedding, plus she has a mother and father who are not as well off as the Middletons and I'm sure she helps out family some. All of that to say that I think about where her clothes come from waaaaaay too much and my conclusion is that she does not buy them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree - she also has many friends in the business (ie stylists, designers etc) and think she has many mutually beneficial friendships (even if they are also genuine).

      Delete
    2. When I think of her, I think of the blue purse she had at the airport. Loved the pop of color. I agree that she has to get some freebies, all stars do. And I agree that she at least helps her mom, as they appear really close. (She did file for BK recently, but that might just be a restructuring and a way for her to better handle things. I'm sure Meg can't do it all.)

      Purses do look like her weakness, don't they? Me too. I was getting ready to buy a Nancy bag last year and they have been discontinued. My heart sank.

      But I think she makes more than a purse or two per episode. I'm sure she's making over a million a year but then there's an agent, taxes, etc. I agree her Canadian place was shocking. Even the outside of it. But I don't think she owns it and probably has her real place in LA. I hope. Can't live off purses!:) You need real estate too!

      Delete
    3. I'm sorry but the assumptions people make about Meghan can really have a whiff of something unpleasant. Given the expense of resale estate in major cities such as Toronto, London, New York, etc. what you describe as "small" and "homey" can actually be quite expensive and not every globe trotting woman wants to spend all her money on real estate. It's also a bit snarky to assume she sends money back to her family. Her parents may not be as wealthy as Kate's (though again we have no idea what financial resources Meghan's family actually has) but that is not the same thing as destitute and dependent on Meghan. If Meghan does get "freebies" from her relationships with designers so what? Kate has relationships with designers too. She may not get "freebies" but we have no idea how they arrive at the prices she pays for her bespoke ensembles. People seem to not like Meghan for some reason (I have my suspicions why) and so make the most unkind and unfounded assumptions about her.

      Delete
    4. I, too, have a comment on the subject of assumptions. And this is a general observation because I actually agree with some of 5:28's points.

      Some of the responses to concerns expressed about MM and/or a potential marriage have been a bit aggressive (as Jane stated). There seems to be the assumption that there is "more to it", despite the fact that many of us who did express concerns ALSO stated that Harry's happiness is what matters most of all. I'm not sure the same generosity of spirit has ever applied to William and Kate....

      Also, what happened to the idea that it's Jane's blog and if a comment goes live, it must be okay? Or that constructive criticism and debate keeps a blog from dripping with sugary remarks? Does that only apply if/when Kate is being criticized?

      Delete
    5. 5:28. There is nothing unkind in saying she hasn't a wealthy family. I hope she is proud of her origins and of what she has achieved.
      All this defensiveness on her behalf on this blog maybe reflects the fact that she is going to be attacked. ( or has already been) Objectively, she will be a target for those who target the royals( the media, the republicans...) and even for those traditional people who support them. And they can easily find something to criticise or some pictures to sell papers. She may be a perfect match for Harry as an individual but her background is polemic. Divorced, actress, not British,( worse, American),not upper class, members of family ready to talk and fighting each other..when you think that Kate's stewardess mother and her see through dress are still mentioned, when you see the way the press treated that girl who lunched with William in Verbier, you can except to see "steamy" Suits pictures of her in 20 years time. We can object to it on this blog, but that doesn't change the world she has to live in.

      Delete
    6. Anon 5:28,
      First, I was not being snarky at all. I like Meghan a lot. I was actually one of the people who was appalled at the way she was treated and mentioned it in this board.

      She's an actress making millions of dollars, where I come from, you would definitely help out your mom/parents. Her mom is divorced and while she owns a home (as reported), she also recently declared bankruptcy. If Meghan wasn't helping her out, I would be horrified.

      Two, have you seen her apartment in Canada? I was really shocked. I can't say that? She's been on the show for six years, people naturally would expect more. BUT, that's why I explained that I thought she doesn't own it, it's only for work etc. Her purse collection that we have seen is literally tens of thousands of dollars, so the apartment was a shock. To discuss this is literally common sense to me.

      Why can't we discuss the freebies she gets? All stars get them. Heck, even the Middleton family - - all of them - was hooked up with free Range Rovers after the wedding. Which I have discussed here before.

      Nothing in our comments was negative about Meghan. I am honestly sorry they upset you but I think the meanness she has experienced made you think that was our intention when it most certainly wasn't.

      Cheers! Anon 6:57

      Delete
    7. I doubt she makes millions of dollars.....

      Delete
    8. She's been on the show for 6 years! She has made millions of dollars. It's 2017, that's not that much.

      Delete
    9. I would be surprised. It's cable, not an top tier show and she's not a well known sought after actress. Hundreds of thousands maybe but not millions. I think you might be surprised by how little many actors earn.

      Delete
    10. She's been on multiple television shows and in several movies. Suits may not be prestige tv but it has been renewed for several seasons and depending on her contract she may receive royalties when reruns are aired. She also presumably earns income from product endorsements and advertising related to The Tig. Assuming she has a competent financial advisor it's quite possible she has a comfortable financial cushion. She is most certainly not a starving stage actress waiting for her big break even if she isn't an A-list celebrity.

      Delete
    11. I don't think she is a starving actress but I don't think she's a multimillionaire either. Big middle ground.

      Delete
    12. Why does it bother people that she's made millions?

      This is going to be Suites 7 season. Minimum to start series, it's $25,000 to $30,000 an episode. Suites does 16 a season. Meghan has probably been making at least 40k per episode for a number of years now. That's 640k a season just for the show, then you have her clothing line and other jobs.

      Cable is now a respected forum that makes money. It's the networks that struggle. And these amounts are chump change in this industry. Meghan has certainly made millions during her career over the years.

      She's literally a self made women, a smart lady who graduated from Northwestern, a very good, academically challenging school.

      Without family money, coming from a poor area, she made it. Harry is marrying up if he gets Meghan, for sure.

      Anon 6:57

      Delete
    13. The way you summarize Meghan's path through life she almost sounds like Carole Middleton ;)

      Delete
    14. Haha should be Suits!:)

      6:57

      Delete
    15. Well,I respect hard working people but do not see something so wonderful in working hard to provide cheap TV entrainment. With obesity rates and violence being what they are, I would not think Suits was benefitting mankind. JMO.

      Delete
    16. I'm confused Anon 2:02. Is your issue that Meghan is an actress on a television show? Rather than a stage actress or maybe even a movie actress? Honestly trying to understand because I'm just not following your argument.

      Delete
    17. 7:49. Interesting question. I guess it would depend on the film. As she isn't a stage or movie actress I don't how I would feel. It is just that I dislike trash TV, and don't feel like gushing over the work she has achieved in that field. Also I think working hard is more or less a neutral value, it is positive if combined with a positive aim. Greed or ambition are potent motives for working hard. That's a general reflexion, not necessarily to be applied to Meghan, but what I mean is that I don't admire the work she does professionally even if I do like her personality. And I don't consider her a role model yet.

      Delete
    18. Anon 5:30. Which of her film/TV work have you seen? I ask because I had a similar attitude until I started watching Suits. She is quite good and the show is not trashy . It depends what you compare it to. Maybe, if compared to Masterpiece Theater. Not trashy, if compared to some reality TV.
      Her bio says she grew up on the set of Married With Children, visiting her father, a lighting director on the show. That show was deliberately trashy.

      At the risk of being attacked for racism, when my intent is just the opposite, I think that a fair portion of those roles were ethnic-oriented, judging by the names and stories of her characters. Women of color have had a tough time in the acting field and sometimes can't pick and choose their roles. She mostly appeared in small or walk-on roles a single time per show. There were a few repeats in TV series appearances. I don't know what growing up in LA would have been like for her. Jane might have an idea.
      At any rate, she persevered in her career. That shows character.
      If she made a few mistakes in an excess of enthusiasm in the beginning--well, who hasn't and it WAS Harry, for goodness sakes. Very exciting times. As royalfan has noted, she has made an effort to correct her initial reactions-which did happen, by the way. ---:+]

      Delete
    19. I am the original commenter and I meant nothing snarky at all. I grew up very poor, married rich, and I support my family financially. My bet is that all people who find themselves in this position do what they can to support the people they love. I'm sure her small and homey apartment was quite expensive - I didn't say she made no money or that there was anything wrong with the place! I also could not be a bigger fan of this woman, so this is highlighting to me how easy it is for people to interpret an internet comment and run with it, often running far from where the poster intended to go! She is a bad ass self-made American woman who has dealt with the real world. She is working those freebies!

      Delete
  28. Theresa. New YorkMay 7, 2017 at 8:30 PM

    I just finished watching my first episode of "Suits." I had never seen Miss Markle in a video only in print pictures. Wow! She is a beautiful woman and a fine actress. I hope that she and Harry find lasting happiness together.

    ReplyDelete
  29. It seems far too soon for Harry and Meghan to be engaged, surely?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm afraid I have to agree.

      Delete
    2. I know alot of other folks think it is too soon for an engagement, Robin & Sugarcanejane. I am curious as to why you and others think that. Since I obviously don't know either Meghan or Harry, I don't know if they are a good match but I don't think timing per se is an issue. Lots of couples have successful marriages after dating for much less time than Meghan and Harry have been. (Including long-distance dating) That seems especially true when the individuals are in their 30's and have developed their own inner sense of "identity," for lack of a better word. In fact, on a **purely statistical basis,** I would think the path Will and Kate took...10 yr or so courtship with periods of cohabitation and periods of apparently painful non-mutual breakups would portend a greater risk to having an eventual happy and trusting marriage than what M&H have done. I'm not saying W&K's marriage isn't happy--I think it probably is although I can't know that for sure. But Will hasn't been shy when it comes to saying marriage was a huge adjustment for him so the 10 yr on-off prelude sounds like it didn't help anyway. 

      I guess one can argue the BRF is a special case but with that family significant others aren't included in events UNTIL an engagement, so I'm not sure that a longer pre-engagement period would be all that useful IF M&H think they are ready.

      Delete
    3. Lizzie, Harry and Meghan do have some life experience under their belts. I recognize that and I understand (and agree!) that time can be a very relative factor in a relationship.

      The concern *I* have is that there are some very real restrictions that come with the package and what may seem like an odd or funny quirk at THIS stage of the game may grow old very quickly for someone who isn't used to them. And Meghan has not had enough exposure to royal life - not given the length of the relationship or the distance factor.

      Delete
    4. Got it royalfan. That (the odd/funny quirk issue) is a reported reason marriages fail along with money conflicts, poor communication, and the oldy but goody--- "I'm sure he/she will change once we get married!" But I'm still hoping for the best however it comes out. 


      Delete
    5. Lizzie, I only want the best for Harry and I will say that, given the ladies he has dated, Meghan would be my pick. Early on, I was turned off by the social media factor here (a pet peeve of mine, I admit it), but I am beginning to be more enthusiastic about this match....

      Delete
    6. I think she combines some of chelseys confidence and independence and some of cressidas creativity and artistic streak. All wrapped up with less baggage than many British aristocrats could offer, some modern savvy and a bit of a "naughty" streak that his mother had. I'm going to say it - I think Meghan is closer to who Diana was than Kate. Diana rocked the boat. Kate won't. But Meghan might.

      Delete
    7. anon 10:01-Interesting ideas. I agree, except for the Kate comparison. I think MM is in a class by herself, when it comes to the BRF, but she has plenty of similarities with some of the European royal spouses. Letizia comes to mind.
      Boat rocking...If they were all boat rockers, the boat would sink. Someone needs to stay the course.---:+]

      Delete
    8. I really don't think Meghan would be allowed to rock the boat. She would be an outsider and expected to conform to the archaic institution ,not the other way around.

      Delete
    9. The other modern european monarchies that people are using to compare to Meghan are irrelevant. They are more informal and much more modernized than the BRF. If you think that Meghan could seamlessly join the royal family and be a strong influential force , you know nothing about the British aristocracy. She would always be the foreigner, the outsider. The general public might accept and love her but within the institution there would always be talk behind her back.

      Delete
    10. I'm not sure any boat rocker actually asks for permission - that's what makes them boat rockers. Diana certainly didn't ask for or have permission for every unconventional action she took while a member of the BRF. And quite frankly on the subject of foreigners never being fully accepted you could be talking about Prince Phillip there and there's no doubt he's had an influence.

      Anon 10:01.

      Delete
    11. Diana didn't rock any boats until she had been a member of the BRF for some years. Early on she was quite the conformist. As far as Prince Philip, 1. he was born a
      royal 2. His family was exiled from Greece when he was an infant. He was educated in France, Germany and Great Britain. 3. He joined Royal Navy at age 18. Hardly a foreigner.

      Delete
    12. And do not forget the BRF didn't approve of Diana and made her life truly difficult. I guess that with the exception of her sons they still don't approve of her. Don't think anybody entering the BRF could rock boats without feeling consequences. Kate has been at pains to conform with was expected of her.

      Delete
    13. But he wasn't English and so yes there was an issue of him being fully accepted.

      Delete
    14. I don't remember any issue with Prince Philip being fully accepted. He wasn't English but he was a bonafide royal. I think an American would find it hard to be accepted within the BRF.

      Delete
    15. Because there is no royal family in America?

      Delete
    16. Prince Philip definitely had a hard time being accepted! Queen E's parents weren't thrilled either. Many thought his uncle was a social climber trying to infiltrate the BRF with Greek royalty, and assumed Philip was in cahoots with him. I think Philip has shown he is much more genuine and truly dedicated to Her Majesty.
      ~ A

      Delete
  30. I think Harry and Meghan are secretly engaged. She took down her blog, she's invited to the Pippa's wedding, she's met Prince Charles and Kate and William. I'm wondering if they will have to marry in a registry office with a blessing at St. George's Chapel, because Meghan is divorced. Not sure if the Church of England is still against divorce. Princess Anne got married at a church (kirk) in Scotland, but even Prince Charles had to get married in a registry office with only a blessing at St. George's Chapel, Windsor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When took down her blog and has met Harry's immediate family but where have we seen a guest list for Pippa's wedding?

      Delete
    2. (Eye roll) She's going to Pip's wedding. Sorry to disappoint you!:)

      Delete
    3. No disappointment, I just want to know when and where this was officially confirmed. Please don't roll your eyes at me. I've raised a teenage girl and it's not only rude, it's likely to make me less inclined to agree with anything you say. Oh, and :-)

      Delete
    4. I rolled my eyes because obviously you know that we will never see a guest list. And you also know that it is widely reported that Meghan is coming to the wedding. So, when you asked about a guest list, that was a smart remark. Which garnered an eye roll back.

      She will be at the wedding and it's killing the Meghan haters.

      Delete
    5. A lot of things have been "widely reported," anon. Doesn't mean they're true. If they were, Kate would have 28 children and she and William would have been in divorce court years ago. In fact, when I see one tabloid after another picking up on a story, that's when a hard look at the source should be taken. I hope she is there, for Harry's sake, at least. The truth is, there was never an announcement directly from Pippa or the Middleton's about any of the wedding details-not even the date. That email sent to some reporters was never clearly identified with KP or the family. There have been no further announcements from that "Facility..."
      Widely reported says nothing about the veracity; just that something has been repeated.
      Here's a little wedding "news-" it was published in multiple forums that Pippa took delivery of her wedding flowers. There is a picture with a story showing her in pink running shorts on her porch, holding an orchid plant. It looked familiar--turns out the photo originally appeared in July, 2016, after her engagement announcement. Apparently, another source had the exclusive picture of a floral delivery truck and employees carrying a box. So, any photo will do. It was not properly ID'd.
      The press will make up and mis-represent stuff in order to get a story.
      THAT is not a news flash.---:+]---
      I hear there are nasty comments about Meghan elsewhere, but I challenge you to find a hateful comment on this blog, other than hints and accusations by anons protesting a subject they themselves brought up. No one else.Concerned, questioning comments-as some have concerns and questions about Kate,, but none of the nasty stuff. There are plenty of sites on which one can justifiably object to racism; this isn't one of them. Annonymous

      Delete
    6. "Concerned" about what Annonymous? So far I have seen shes American (because royal families never marry other nationalities - just ask prince Philip), she's an actress (ask grace kelly about that), she's divorced (king Edward, princess Anne, Charles, Andrew), she wasn't British aristocracy (Kate).

      Delete
    7. Maybe not individually,but taken all together, those concerns do present a formidable challenge.
      What royal spouse has been British aristocracy in the past 50 years. Diana, of course, with a pedigree to match the BRF. I guess the QM counts, with minor Scottish- aristocracy roots. Autumn, Sophie, Camilla, Sarah, Tim Lawrence, Zara's husband...all commoners. It's the combination of commoner,American, divorced, Catholic, actress...that is the challenge and the concern. Not one of the people you mentioned had that combination.

      Delete
    8. It's obnoxious and rude to list all the things that you think will stop her from being a member of the royal family and based on what? Absolutely nothing.

      Guess what will make her a member of the royal family? Harry. That's it.

      Delete
    9. Name calling aside, 10:27, and I don't know if you are also 9:57-because that's where my list came from- so maybe you were "rude and obnoxious" as well.I don't think anyone has seriously suggested she should be stopped from joining the BRF. If I am wrong, please quote which comment proves it.
      Also. Harry can obviously marry whomever he wishes to marry, Q ueen or no Queen. She would become a member of his family. Whether or not he would remain in the succession and she would be comfortable in the family could depend on those factors.
      I honestly don't see the problem with citing concerns. Every couple faces some obstacles. The point is to work them out, hopefully before marriage-because if they prove unsolvable, the marriage will suffer. I don't think anyone can rationally dispute that.
      This seems to have become an emotional discussion and honestly a bit repetitive.
      Luckily, Kate has a solo mini tour tomorrow and we can get back to the subject of this blog.---:+]--- Annonymous

      Delete
    10. Its not based on nothing. Its based on precedence. And its the Queen who will make her a member of the royal family. She has to approve the marriage.

      Delete
    11. I can guarantee you that William and Harry picked and will pick their wive(s). The Queen's approval will not matter.

      Delete
    12. So now Harry might not remain in line for the throne if he marries Meghan and she might not be "comfortable" in the RF per 3:16.

      You people are really deluded.

      Delete
    13. If the Queen does not approve the marriage, Harry can still marry her but he has to give up his right and his children's rights to the throne. It is a thing. Look it up. As a matter of fact, it happened not too long ago in Luxembourg.

      Delete
    14. I think we are dealing with a really rude young girl here, so I'm not putting anymore effort in this conversation. Anon 3:28

      Delete
    15. Who do people think the Queen won't approve the marriage?

      Delete
    16. MK the Church of Scotland is not the same as the Church of England - hence why it isn't called Church of U.K. ;-) Church of Scotland allows divorced people to marry - hence why Anne remarried there. Queen E could have allowed her sister Margaret to marry in Scotland, but ultimately told her sister to end that relationship.

      ~ A

      Delete
    17. The Queen is never going to do that to Harry, never. THAT'S my point. Do you know what that would cause, both politically and personally in that family? All hell would break loose.

      And your comment 6:52 is funny. You aren't talking over my head, I'm actually having to talk down to your level.

      To think MM isn't fit to be accepted into the RF and the Queen would want Harry to step aside because of that.... You are living in another time. And those comments are the height of rudeness.


      Delete
    18. We're not living in another time; the BRF and Parliament made the rules and precedents-and I agree, in spite of attempts to update with amendments to the Act of Succession-it's ok for a spouse of a monarch to be Catholic and male primogeniture no longer applies-some, if not most of the BRF and their supporters in Parliament are from another time..
      If it is rude to present the facts, then go ahead- resort to name-calling and insults because the facts aren't on your side and no one said MM "isn't fit to be accepted into the RF," other than Anon 8:36.
      Really, this isn't college dorm material after-all; it is more junior high.--:+]--- The only reason I have replied to some of these statements is there is an obvious attempt to hijack and demean the comments on this blog. This community has meant a lot to me, but I feel it has become an exercise in futility to attempt to reason with people who won't take responsibility for their own comments.
      I have enjoyed many of the comments but the pleasure has been eclipsed by infusions of spite and dissention.Annonymous

      Delete
    19. That frustration you feel Annonymous is familiar to other posters who have been attacked in the past for not toe-ing the line on certain opinions dearly held by some vocal commenters. Disagreement - even strong disagreement - about Meghan and her *potential* role in the BRF is not an attempt to "hijack" this blog. It is clear from the comments here that some people are very opposed to Meghan marrying Harry and another group of commenters is very put off by their position and the "arguments" offered in favor of it.

      And yes, the BRF and certain monarchists in Parliament are firmly rooted in the past - that is understandable and can be admirable. At the same time, the rest of the world is not living in another time - and if the BRF insists on clinging to certain early 20th century prejudices it may eventually find itself a historical relic.

      Delete
  31. I think they are engaged also. She's a successful business woman and doubt she would make such business choices of late, without that commitment. I am so happy for them both! I love that they have found a like minded spirit to walk this work with. They seem like a wonderful pair. As far as fashion goes, I love Meghan's classic coastal style and think it will resonate beautifully across the pond. I love Duchess Kate's style also - especially her country looks. It is such fun exploring the styles of both of these glamorous ladies!

    ReplyDelete
  32. Don't get too excited about the polo photos. Prince Charles took several girlfriends to polo matches, including Diana's sister Sarah.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very true about PC. However, given Harry's age (and Meghan's), one would expect him to be serious about a lady at this point and not allow her to be the subject of massive speculation without it leading to SOMETHING serious...

      Delete
  33. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I find MM overdressed for the occasion. Kate's more chic & understated as she understands how one dresses for a polo match. I wish Harry every happiness but not sure MM is the right choice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because of her dress? She was wearing a dress and a blazer. The woman next to her was wearing a lace cocktail dress and a blazer. Meghan didn't look out of place at all.

      Delete
    2. The woman next to her was also an American. ---:+]---However, this was a special match, being at Windsor Great Park, for one thing. And the royal enclosure. Otherwise, polo matches are generally less formal, especially when the children are present and have to be corralled. MM's dress may have been a little cocktailish for an outdoor sporting event, but then Ascot is out of doors as well.
      Were there any photos showing others in the royal box, beyond Meghan's group?

      Delete
  35. Did not read the chaos of comments before mine - just wanted to say that I love that dress! :)

    ReplyDelete

The rules for commenting are simple: be polite. Please be respectful of the BRF/Middletons, even in criticism; please be respectful of your fellow readers, even in disagreement. Vulgarity will disqualify a comment.

Debate is welcome, direct and personal insults are not. Topics we tend to avoid here: "does Kate work enough?" and "Is Kate too skinny?" Everything is subject to approval.

I (Jane Barr) moderate all comments. If a comment is live, I approved it. If you find something offensive, or think my approval was an error, please email me at princesskateblog(at)gmail.com.

At times, an acceptable comment just goes missing. If you felt your comment should have been approved, but did not show up within five hours, again, pop an email to the above address.

Happy chatting!