Meghan Markle's Wedding Tiara

[MichelleQ2]

Throwing my theory into the mix....

It sounds as though there may be some points of truth in this story after all but I think mixed with some journalistic embellishment.

I find it curious that the tiara in contention is an emerald tiara - and eugenie wore an emerald tiara. My theory is that eugenie picked her tiara first....perhaps it’s been a longtime favorite she played with her granny as a child. (Had to be something special for her not to wear the York tiara). This theory hold a little more water if you add in the rumors that eugenie and jack delayed their engagement/wedding for Harry & Megs. So many comparisons between the 2 weddings, you can’t fault a grandmother for wanting her granddaughter to have something of her own. So maybe if meg expressed an interest in an emerald tiara... HM steered meg away from it without disclosing Eugenie’s choice). Maybe Harry had told her there was one and knew meg had wanted an emerald, so he pushed back to Angela Kelly. That may have been how Harry ended up at what could have been the 2nd tiara viewing... and he came along to make sure Meghan was happy. ... and that is the story that was retold on the Windsor castle tour. Now I do believe Harry did say “whatever Meghan wants, Meghan gets”. Remembering that all of this was going on in the midst markel family drama - and Harry is very protective.

There are always going to be tough moments during wedding planning, so I’m sure there may have been sharp moments. Unfortunately when repeated they just add spice to the story.

All b

 

[Ista]

I don't believe this story, but I am extremely curious about this so called "evidence" that Valentine Low keeps on referencing. What kind of "evidence" could it be? A tape recording? Video camera footage? A signed affidavit from Harry that he lost his temper with his Gran and kicked one of her dorgis?

If what he is really claiming as evidence is a description of the purported events by a supposed eye-witness, then we're back at hearsay, which, depending on the motives of the witness, is open to question and interpretation. Barring something that actually is evidence, there are just too many things that don't hang together, from the fact that Meghan has never shown any preference for emeralds (if the tiara had been, say, opals or pearls or some other pale stone it might have had more credibility) the unlikelihood of Meghan throwing a tantrum, the unlikelihood of Harry having a tantrum at his grandmother, the unlikelihood of a tiara being offered without consideration of its provenance, and so on.

At this point I think everything points to this being about Jobson selling a book, and the media jumping on board for the ride.

 

[Tarlita]

The only Emerald tiara owned by the Queen is the Greville tiara which Prss Eugenie wore.
The Grand Duchess Vladimir tiara was bought by Queen Mary in 1928 for £28,000. From the Grand Duchess Vladimirs daughter Elena. She was a cousin of Tsar Nicholas II and she inherited her mothers diamonds including this tiara.
The tiara in its original form comes with drop pearls swinging within the circles. Queen Mary had some of the Cambridge Emeralds made to replace the pearls when she felt like it. Doco's in the past show that each emerald is kept in a velvet jewellers bag, as the tiara is kept in its original form with the pearls. This tiara is not known as an emerald tiara. IF and its a big IF this tiara were shown to Meghan it would be in its original form with the pearls.

However, this tiara is a favourite of the Queens and would never be offered to anyone else.

I just assumed everyone would understand that this is a made up story by Jobson. From start to finish.

 

[Ista]

Throwing my theory into the mix....

It sounds as though there may be some points of truth in this story after all but I think mixed with some journalistic embellishment.

I find it curious that the tiara in contention is an emerald tiara - and eugenie wore an emerald tiara. My theory is that eugenie picked her tiara first....perhaps it’s been a longtime favorite she played with her granny as a child. (Had to be something special for her not to wear the York tiara). This theory hold a little more water if you add in the rumors that eugenie and jack delayed their engagement/wedding for Harry & Megs. So many comparisons between the 2 weddings, you can’t fault a grandmother for wanting her granddaughter to have something of her own. So maybe if meg expressed an interest in an emerald tiara... HM steered meg away from it without disclosing Eugenie’s choice). Maybe Harry had told her there was one and knew meg had wanted an emerald, so he pushed back to Angela Kelly. That may have been how Harry ended up at what could have been the 2nd tiara viewing... and he came along to make sure Meghan was happy. ... and that is the story that was retold on the Windsor castle tour. Now I do believe Harry did say “whatever Meghan wants, Meghan gets”. Remembering that all of this was going on in the midst markel family drama - and Harry is very protective.

There are always going to be tough moments during wedding planning, so I’m sure there may have been sharp moments. Unfortunately when repeated they just add spice to the story.

All b

I have wondered about this, too.

 

[jacqui24]

Throwing my theory into the mix....

It sounds as though there may be some points of truth in this story after all but I think mixed with some journalistic embellishment.

I find it curious that the tiara in contention is an emerald tiara - and eugenie wore an emerald tiara. My theory is that eugenie picked her tiara first....perhaps it’s been a longtime favorite she played with her granny as a child. (Had to be something special for her not to wear the York tiara). This theory hold a little more water if you add in the rumors that eugenie and jack delayed their engagement/wedding for Harry & Megs. So many comparisons between the 2 weddings, you can’t fault a grandmother for wanting her granddaughter to have something of her own. So maybe if meg expressed an interest in an emerald tiara... HM steered meg away from it without disclosing Eugenie’s choice). Maybe Harry had told her there was one and knew meg had wanted an emerald, so he pushed back to Angela Kelly. That may have been how Harry ended up at what could have been the 2nd tiara viewing... and he came along to make sure Meghan was happy. ... and that is the story that was retold on the Windsor castle tour. Now I do believe Harry did say “whatever Meghan wants, Meghan gets”. Remembering that all of this was going on in the midst markel family drama - and Harry is very protective.

There are always going to be tough moments during wedding planning, so I’m sure there may have been sharp moments. Unfortunately when repeated they just add spice to the story.

All b

The problem with that is I highly doubt Harry would’ve seen that emerald tiara when he was younger and now all of sudden thought it’d be perfect for Meghan and asked for it without it having been presented to them as a choice.

And why would Eugenie be choosing her tiara first? Even if she did, then HMQ wouldn’t have presented it to Meghan as a choice. And Eugenie and jack didn’t delay their engagement /wedding to accommodate Meghan and Harry. They weren’t even engaged by the time the date was announced for the Sussex wedding. They were together for 7 years and could’ve gotten engaged any time they liked. They didn’t.

Again, all possible theories about this seems to be based on some thought that Meghan really like emeralds. She has shown no inclination for emeralds.

 

[Osipi]

If anything, this tabloid story is giving us a good run in playing the "what if" game.

The thing that stands out for me is this all happened *before* Harry and Meghan's wedding. Meghan is being offered a tiara to wear for the grand occasion by HM, The Queen. All I know that if I had been in Meghan's shoes at that point, I'd still be in awe of this lady even with having a good rapport with her so far. Gazing in awe at the tiaras spread out before me, I'd mostly be stunned to think that I could ever wear one of them and the last thing I'd think of doing is throwing a hissy fit of not getting my own way.

 

[MARG]

When Meghan chose her tiara I believe it was from those HM offered and probably a couple of months or more before the wedding. I am sure that Angela, HM's trusty dresser was present when Meghan tried the options to ensure the tiaras were placed properly.

Two other people were present, Harry, who said he shouldn't really have been there but was probably being over-protective, and I cannot believe that HM was anywhere else but present watching and enjoying the goings-on. So that leaves four people present. Hmm.

The colour of Meghan's gown was blinding ice white and the star was to be the similarly coloured embroidered veil. A coloured gem tiara does not lend itself to the esthetic that Meghan aspired for her wedding.

As to HM's the jewellery, I think I remember from a documentary that when HM wanted something from the vault, she wrote a request and the boxes were delivered to her dresser so the idea of having an inappropriate tiara present is a total nonsense just as is the notion that there is a question mark over the provenance of any jewellery. The thought that there is jewellery in the vaults whose provenance or source of origin not clear is one thing, but that it is dubious enough for it to not be seen in public? I think not!

 

[soapstar]

I’ve deleted a few comments. As the last mod note stated, this thread is about Meghan’s wedding tiara. It’s not about the tabloids/media and whether journalists have an agenda against Meghan. Let’s please stick to the topic. Any further off-topic posts will be deleted.

 

[Abbigail]

The problem with that is I highly doubt Harry would’ve seen that emerald tiara when he was younger and now all of sudden thought it’d be perfect for Meghan and asked for it without it having been presented to them as a choice.

And why would Eugenie be choosing her tiara first? Even if she did, then HMQ wouldn’t have presented it to Meghan as a choice. And Eugenie and jack didn’t delay their engagement /wedding to accommodate Meghan and Harry. They weren’t even engaged by the time the date was announced for the Sussex wedding. They were together for 7 years and could’ve gotten engaged any time they liked. They didn’t.

Again, all possible theories about this seems to be based on some thought that Meghan really like emeralds. She has shown no inclination for emeralds.

I will say again, I agree with this completely.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

The reactions in this whole thread represents why tabloids are kept in business. A lame story with credible sources but the majority in here believe it and take it as truth. What in any of Meghan's history points to her liking emerald or green or any flashy colors? Her engagement ring is basic and standard, her dress was basic, so why would she call for a green ostentatious tiara? And why would her tiara choices be presented differently than Kate's?

 

[Leopoldine]

I think that the main question is ….

Is there another fabulous emerald and diamond tiara in HM's collection?

 

[O-H Anglophile]

The reactions in this whole thread represents why tabloids are kept in business. A lame story with credible sources but the majority in here believe it and take it as truth. What in any of Meghan's history points to her liking emerald or green or any flashy colors? Her engagement ring is basic and standard, her dress was basic, so why would she call for a green ostentatious tiara? And why would her tiara choices be presented differently than Kate's?

Why do you say the story has credible sources and the majority here believe it? It seems like just the opposite to me.

 

[MARG]

I will say again, I agree with this completely.

[emoji38]

Just a note that the Breville Emerald Kokoshnik was in the possession of the QM at Clarence House until her death and hadn't been worn.

The reason I believe it was chosen even months before her wedding was that it was that the back of her gown that the focus so the tiara would have to carry the entire action all the way up the aisle with no veil and so needed to be pretty special and very unique. Viola!

 

[JennahPc]

This story is likely rubbish however, there is the possibility that she may have been gifted an emerald tiara and with the past historical significance unknown was forced to borrow one from HM. She was a Hollywood actress. They are used to borrowing gems and dresses for events.

 

[Dman]

It’s 2018 and the media still making it seem like the female newcomers are difficult and have to be put in their place by The Queen. This was done to Meghan’s late Mother-in-law and her ex aunt-in-law. It’s sexist and tired.

I guess the media and some folks online decided to ignore the fact the Meghan stated the lovely experience she had choosing tiaras with The Queen and Harry.

 

[MARG]

You are right, there is no evidence whatsoever that there was an issue regarding tiaras of any shape, style or colour and we are letting the insidious fairytales of members of the media who are known for creating stories make us wonder if . . . . Shame on them and shame on us. We should all know better.

 

[Dman]

You are right, there is no evidence whatsoever that there was an issue regarding tiaras of any shape, style or colour and we are letting the insidious fairytales of members of the media who are known for creating stories make us wonder if . . . . Shame on them and shame on us. We should all know better.

We should indeed.

 

[Kataryn]

And let's not forget that surely a lot of "Palace insiders" (probably including HM's ladies in waiting,all quite old now and from the nobility) are conservatives and for them Meghan is surely not what they considered a Royal bride to be: biracial, twice married.. I found it interesting that the story about HM's opinion about a veil was told, even though we all discarded that as nonsense because of the way that veil is on display now. But I can imagine some elderly lady thinking so and putting words in HM's mouth she wishes she herself could say to Meghan in person but can't. While the queen does not seem like the type to destroy Meghan's and Harry's fun because of old-fashioned thinking. Once she agreed to a religious wedding (think Charles/Camilla), I highly doubt that she had problems with a bride wearing a veil.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

And let's not forget that surely a lot of "Palace insiders" (probably including HM's ladies in waiting,all quite old now and from the nobility) are conservatives and for them Meghan is surely not what they considered a Royal bride to be: biracial, twice married.. I found it interesting that the story about HM's opinion about a veil was told, even though we all discarded that as nonsense because of the way that veil is on display now. But I can imagine some elderly lady thinking so and putting words in HM's mouth she wishes she herself could say to Meghan in person but can't. While the queen does not seem like the type to destroy Meghan's and Harry's fun because of old-fashioned thinking. Once she agreed to a religious wedding (think Charles/Camilla), I highly doubt that she had problems with a bride wearing a veil.

"A palace source" can also mean: completely sucked ouf of a thumb.

 

[Mbruno]

The tiara story would have been more credible if the Times could have identified exactly which tiara Meghan had allegedly chosen to wear. As the story stands, it is difficult to think of an emerald and diamond set in the Queen's collection whose provenance would be doubtful.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

I don't believe this story for the simple fact that Meghan's interest in color is slim to none. It was stated that every piece, from veil to tiara to dress, was to create a LOOK and nothing was to interfere with the magnificent veil. An emerald tiara wouldn't have suited.

Two different weddings, two different brides, two different looks.

Exactly. And from looking at the tiara the Queen has worn that's being purported as the one Meghan selected, it doesn't make sense because that tiara (previously worn by the Queen) would not have been offered to Meghan as a possible selection.

As I mentioned earlier, and others have noted as well, Duchess Meghan's taste in jewelry has been for simple, delicate pieces, not elaborate colored stones. The only colored gem I can recall Meghan wearing is the gorgeous to-die-for aquamarine ring of Diana's (made by Asprey) that Harry gifted to Meghan, and she wore with her Stella McCartney after-party dress, and later with the white Theia dress on the recent tour. Meghan's engagement ring is made of diamonds, and indeed diamonds suit her. An emerald tiara would have detracted from the gorgeous veil, and the simplicity of Meghan's dress, whereas the Diamond Bandeau tiara was perfect! It enhanced the veil, the dress, and Meghan's coloring.

I think this story was made up piecemeal after the royal wedding exhibit audio came out, and as some kind of effort to create OTT drama based on the fact that Eugenie wore a fabulous emerald tiara. That tiara worked so beautifully with Eugenie's dress (without a veil), and especially with Eugenie's hair color, eye color, etc.

As you said Empress Merel, two different weddings, two different brides, two different tiaras, and I don't buy that any drama was involved at all. If anything, Eugenie may have been inspired in some ways by M&H's wedding, but then she made her own individual and unique choices that suited her. The whole tabloid brouhaha is likely being made up completely, or else falsely fashioned together out of bits and pieces of overheard or imagined snippets of behind-the-scenes goings-on that actually do not involve any drama between the royals.

The real drama is taking place among the royal journos and tabloids (and perhaps a few disgruntled courtiers, or jealous periphery outsiders) who have nothing better to do. I guess they don't realize that Meghan is made of tough-stuff: Tungsten to be exact.

 

[muriel]

The tiara story would have been more credible if the Times could have identified exactly which tiara Meghan had allegedly chosen to wear. As the story stands, it is difficult to think of an emerald and diamond set in the Queen's collection whose provenance would be doubtful.

The reality is, we have no idea as to what jewellery the Queen possesses. The Greville emerald and diamond tiara was rumoured to exist, but there was no real proof, and was first seen c75 years after it came into the possession of the RF. Not that I as suggesting the story is true, but there could well be another emerald and diamond tiara that we are unaware of.

 

[Denville]

seemsto me, that if no one believes the story is true, there is still a lot of discussion of it.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

Yep, apparently that's the purpose of the fabrications: to get reactions and people discussing. And again, in the absence of seeing Meghan wearing another fabulous tiara, the tabloids seem to need to create drama about wedding tiaras. Nothing better to do, for all involved?

 

[muriel]

seemsto me, that if no one believes the story is true, there is still a lot of discussion of it.

IMO, that is because these days, if anybody dare post anything other than a paean to Meghan, the floodgates of condemnation and disapproval are opened. The press, it seems, increasingly, has other ideas.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

Seriously doubt that, since the tabs were on the warpath against Meghan from the very beginning. And this thread should be about Meghan's wedding tiara, not about whether paeans on her behalf are required, which they clearly are not.

Harry: "At the end of the day, Meghan chooses me, and I choose her. And therefore whatever we have to tackle individually or together, it will always be us together as a team... There's a hell of a lot that needs doing, but for us we'll make sure that our relationship is always put first..."

 

[Denville]

IMO, that is because these days, if anybody dare post anything other than a paean to Meghan, the floodgates of condemnation and disapproval are opened. The press, it seems, increasingly, has other ideas.

Not everyone is going to like her, the Press will write criticial stories and gushy stories, because that is the way Royal coverage works. Not everyone loves every Royal and so while she's had some good coverage, its inevitable that she will also get bad stories, because people who dislike the RF or her in particular will be bored by gushing praise type of stories... but if most people on this forum think she's wonderful why give any sort of credence to negative stories

 

[Denville]

Why do you say the story has credible sources and the majority here believe it? It seems like just the opposite to me.

True, if it is a "lame story" how can it have credible sources? and I certainly would not say that the majority on this forum believe it..

 

[Dman]

It’s not about who likes a royal or not. It’s about truth vs lie. Those who go to see the wedding display at Windsor will hear the truth from Meghan and Harry on the wonderful and exciting experience Meghan had in picking out her tiara.

Everything else is a tabloid lie that’s meant to stir up conversation.

 

[Tilia C.]

Here's another reminder to stay on topic. A lengthy off-topic discussion has been removed. Please keep in mind that this thread is about Meghan's wedding tiara, not about journalism, her veil, or even other brides' veils.