Meghan Markle's Wedding Tiara

[Kataryn]

It's a weird and ridiculous story, any way you look at it. Even putting to one side everything we have observed about Meghan and Harry--Meghan at least has never shown any signs of being the tantrumy type and we would surely have heard about it if she were--It's highly unlikely that Her Majesty had not given some thought to which tiaras she was willing to make available to loan. The Queen is interested in and knowledgable about all her jewels. My best guess would be that either she or someone like Angela Kelly showed Meghan and Harry a preselected group of suitable tiaras and Meghan made her choice from those.

And for those who think this is some kind of slander personally directed at Meghan, once again, Catherine faced the same kind of baseless, made up stories, and so did and do other royal ladies. It's the tabloids trying to get their readers whipped up into a frenzy.

I remember the stories about Kate's choice of the Cartier Halo tiara and how relatively modest that was compared to other tiaras the queen obviously has. As Catherine was to become the future queen, I believe she could have gotten another tiara easily, seeing those Eugenie and Meghan wore. Plus the tiaras HM loans out are usually very fitting to the personal style of each Royal lady, so I guess there is a procedere where HM selects some options (surely after having talked to the bride/wife about what they could imagine wearing) and then there is a personal choice.



We've seen Catherine now out in public so often and IMHO the understated elegance and modern design of the Cartier Halo really fits her. But now she wears larger tiaras due to her position which after three kids and an quite old queen is much more established than it was at her marriage.


Equally Eugenie: her parents wanted a "BIG ROYAL" wedding for her (did you read about Sarah calling Jack Eugenie's "consort" - poor man!) and her tiara matched that idea. Just like Meghan's matched her personal style very much with the more glittery tiara equal to the fun wedding they had.



So, no, I don't believe this story! Harry has so often said how much respect he has for his grandmother, surely Meghan learned from him to be careful with the old lady. Hm, will look up that Lainey article though. Maybe there is a POV that is worth looking at.

 

[jacqui24]

I am not suggesting attaching a level of credibility to the Jobson story, but H&M were hardly going to talk about the bride's strop in a voiceover for the exhibition at Windsor.

While I doubt they would air any dirty laundry in public, the method of how this came about doesn't make sense. If they said they were given the catalog to look at all tiaras, ok fine. However, they were presented with actual tiaras to try on that day. Well, Meghan did. I'm assuming Harry stuck to supportive role here. Unless you want to suggest HMQ and her aides are so incompetent that they would present Meghan with a tiara they think is unsuitable for Meghan to wear?

 

[MaiaMia_53]

... Equally Eugenie: her parents wanted a "BIG ROYAL" wedding for her (did you read about Sarah calling Jack Eugenie's "consort" - poor man!) and her tiara matched that idea. Just like Meghan's matched her personal style very much with the more glittery tiara equal to the fun wedding they had.

So, no, I don't believe this story! Harry has so often said how much respect he has for his grandmother, surely Meghan learned from him to be careful with the old lady. Hm, will look up that Lainey article though. Maybe there is a POV that is worth looking at.

I'm going to link the recent Lainey Gossip write-up re 'tiara drama' in the British royal relationships thread, because it seems more appropriate to be discussed there.

 

[muriel]

While I doubt they would air any dirty laundry in public, the method of how this came about doesn't make sense. If they said they were given the catalog to look at all tiaras, ok fine. However, they were presented with actual tiaras to try on that day. Well, Meghan did. I'm assuming Harry stuck to supportive role here. Unless you want to suggest HMQ and her aides are so incompetent that they would present Meghan with a tiara they think is unsuitable for Meghan to wear?

I am afraid you are implying I have suggested things I have not. I have made no comment on what may have gone on. All I have said is that one need not take the voiceover from H&M for the exhibition at Windsor as gospel. If the truth were different, they are hardly likely to have said so in the voiceover.

 

[Denville]

oh come Im sure meghan is too shrewd to maek a fuss like this....

 

[muriel]

oh come Im sure meghan is too shrewd to maek a fuss like this....

Thats right, there are many things about this story that don't make much sense.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

I can believe that Meghan possibly requested an emerald tiara she may have seen, and was then told it wasn't available, and that was the end of the story. She wouldn't have overstepped or expected anything beyond what was available. I tend not to believe she specifically wanted emeralds though, because Meghan's preferences in jewelry are rather simple, delicate, and minimalist.

 

[Queen Claude]

Someone posted tweets from Dan Wooten where Wooten said the info about the tiara was not in Jobson's book. I went to Wooten's Twitter to try and find that exchange and he tweeted the following not too long ago.

Dan Wootton‏Verified account @danwootton 1h1 hour ago
For all the doubters, The Times today confirms my exclusive from yesterday about the Queen warning Prince Harry about Meghan Markle's behaviour before the royal wedding.@valentinelow reveals the monarch was "taken aback" by her "temper tantrums". Wowsers!


Link to Times article but most of article is behind a paywall.

 

[Denville]

So



For all the doubters, The Times today confirms my exclusive from yesterday about the Queen warning Prince Harry about Meghan Markle's behaviour before the royal wedding.@valentinelow reveals the monarch was "taken aback" by her "temper tantrums". Wowsers!

The Times referred to Meghan's temper tantrums? I must buy it....

 

[DeeT]

Lainey quoted Dan Wootton who wrote the ‘exclusive tiara story’ in the Sun that all the other media also copied & pasted from. The same Sun that is reporting today by Jack Royston that The Cambridges will not attend Charles’ birthday celebrations because of previous charity engagements.

 

[Denville]

But this is not the Sun that is referred to, its the Times.

 

[DeeT]

The Times referred to Meghan's temper tantrums? I must buy it....

The Times article by Valentine Low quotes the Sun’s Dan Wootton for its source. No need to keep a paid subscription at the Times if they’re going to copy the same rubbish from the Sun.

 

[Denville]

The Times article by Valentine Low quotes the Sun’s Dan Wootton for its source. No need to keep a paid subscription at the Times if they’re going to copy the same rubbish from the Sun.

I rarely buy papers, but yes I would be surprised if they were quoting from a Sun article as the source. Usualy these papers are very much pro Monarchy and not likely to quote the tabloids nor to put forward a story that does not show a royal In a good light...(unless it is undeniably true)

 

[Queen Claude]

People has the following:

The U.K. newspaper The Times confirms that the emerald tiara was among those initially shown to the former actress and adds that Meghan, 37, was asked to pick another because officials at Buckingham Palace “had concerns about its provenance.”

If this is actually what happened where the tiara with emeralds were actually shown, selected by Meghan and then she was told she needed to pick another, I can see why she got upset and Harry got upset on her behalf. I just wonder how upset did one or both get for the Queen to get involved.

 

[Denville]

People has the following:
If this is actually what happened where the tiara with emeralds were actually shown, selected by Meghan and then she was told she needed to pick another, I can see why she got upset and Harry got upset on her behalf. I just wonder how upset did one or both get for the Queen to get involved.

If it did happen that the tiara was shown, and then they said no, it was a bad decision on the part of whoever looks after the jewellery. But people do make mistakes at times and it may have been that they checked about the provenance and for some reason after she had made her choice told her that she could not use it. If Meg was annoyed and upset, I could understand that..
but if she did thrown a TANTRUM that's not acceptable. SHe's new to the RF, and tantrums from a newbie don't sound good. if she did indeed get loud about it and Harry also entered a shouting match, I can see the queen being pretty annoyed...

 

[DeeT]

I rarely buy papers, but yes I would be surprised if they were quoting from a Sun article as the source. Usualy these papers are very much pro Monarchy and not likely to quote the tabloids nor to put forward a story that does not show a royal In a good light...(unless it is undeniably true)

I read the article written by Low, it references the Sun throughout: “according to the Sun”, “the article in the Sun”...

The Times used tabloid quotes throughout the article, that tells me all I need to know about ‘quality journalism’, when one can’t write an article without multiple references to tabloids.

 

[Madame Verseau]

The Times didn't independently confirm Tiara-gate, just lifted "reporting" from the Sun. That's lazy journalism 101. That's why stories get traction; the so-called legitimate press picks up the story.

 

[Terri Terri]

And round and round we go.....this issue clearly demonstrates the ability of the media to totally character assassinate a person and people will believe it wholeheartedly!

Isn't it any wonder that Harry and Meghan take great lenghts to keep their private life so private that as of this day we don't even know what their country home looks like?

I expect that behaviour will increase when their child is born! We will see them even less than the Cambridge children.

 

[Osipi]

Sheeesh. You'd think there were reporters with microphones and a film crew in the room the way this story is gaining traction.

I would think though that if several pieces of very expensive and historical jewelry were going to be brought out and in the room with the Queen, Meghan and Harry, the only people standing by were probably well trusted staff. As this story seems to have been "leaked", it stands to reason that right now someone's head is on the chopping block and HM knows exactly what head she wants if that culprit was in the room and witnessed all of this.

Personally, I think the story is pure hogwash but then again, there's a lot of hogs out there that need washing. There's a lot of mud out there.

 

[Denville]

Sheeesh. You'ry expensive and historical jewelry were going to be brought out and in the room with the Queen, Meghan and Harry, the only people standing by were probably well trusted staff. As this story seems to have been "leaked", it stands to reason that right now someone's head is on the chopping block and HM knows exactly what head she wants if that culprit was in the room and witnessed all of this.

Pe

but if you say the story was "leaked" by some staff member, then presumably its true.... maybe exaggerated but essentially true. the queen's sacking some one who "leaked it" will not take away from the fact that there was some kind of a row....

 

[Queen Claude]

I read the article written by Low, it references the Sun throughout: “according to the Sun”, “the article in the Sun”...

The Times used tabloid quotes throughout the article, that tells me all I need to know about ‘quality journalism’, when one can’t write an article without multiple references to tabloids.

Was there information in the Times article that was not in the Sun article? The People article quotes both The Sun and The Times and Wootton's tweet also suggests that The Times has additional information. If The Times pursued the story due to something initiated by The Sun and did not acknowledge the tabloid that would be poorer journalism than The Times running the story with no acknowledgement of The Sun thus implying that the story that they are running came from their own initiative JMHO.

 

[RoyalHighness 2002]

There is for instance and archive video at one of these reception where Princess Alexandra is chatting an Ambassador of Ghana reminding him, that it was she who represented the Queen at Ghana's Independence Ceremonies in Accra in 1957. And the Ambassador after not being sure maybe he as too young back then finally concur.

It was Nigeria in 1960, but since they are the biggest players in West Africa I guess it can be easy to confuse them at times.

 

[wyevale]

the fact that there was some kind of a row....

There are NO 'Facts' here, none that are 'copper bottomed', ALL of this is supposition intended to help flog a book..

 

[Mirabel]

The story sounds plausible, if a bit exaggerated.

What I can believe is that Meghan may have noticed a particular tiara in the catalogue (we've always suspected there is a catalogue of all the jewels in the vault) and asked if she could wear that.

But when it was explained that the provenance was dodgy, I could see her simply opting for her second choice without any huge drama.


(Lainey's tale about one-upmanship from Eugenie seems false, since I doubt the tiara in question was the Greville. There's no doubt about the provenance for that).

 

[Osipi]

Now this took a while as my memory fades in and out at times but a name was nagging me. I'd heard it before somewhere and it finally came to me. Dan Wooten. Yeps. He's been in the limelight a lot recently and mostly because of those that shall not be mentioned here.

Now I sincerely believe this is a trash story with absolutely no merit behind it. Its not the first time that other publications have picked up garbage that came out of Wooten's mouth.

 

[ACO]

I read the article. The stories are all jumbled now. Valentine Low is on twitter now saying he has his own source. He removed some pieces of the story like the Queen's opinion of the need of the veil but says that a source "was surprised by their behavior" over tiara. So someone seeking out the press to attack Meghan?

The timing is very interesting and frankly the whole thing sounds ridiculous especially with the other stories that came out yesterday also very negative at Meghan. "A personal assistant from he tour has quit." Or the tour is over and she moved on. Personally sounds like someone behind the scenes has it out for Meghan.

I just can't see the Queen being that incompetent to offer a tiara and then withdraw it. That is what Valentine said happened and caused the entire "blow up." He is quoted to say, "Why did that happen?" So I guess a followup is to come?

 

[JuliannaVictoria]

I read all of the articles independently. DailyMail got the info directly from the Sun article, and referenced it as so. The Times did the exact same thing DM did. They are smart enough to cover their asses by saying throughout the article that their information came from the Sun article just in case it's not so. They didn't confirm if anything was true or not, just restated what was said in the Sun.

Now, VL is backtracking on what he wrote in the article and I think we're going to see a lot of back tracking soon in the coming days.

This is what I think happened. Meghan was presented not with a catalog of tiaras, but with a select few as Kate was. She choose the emerald one, and later found out that it wasn't possible due to providence. She may have been disappointed, but I really can't see a grown woman in her 30's throwing a freaking tantrum over a tiara. Harry may have been a lot more disappointed for her because of everything that was going on, and I can see him asking about the issue. However, I can't see him having a strop with the Queen over a tiara on behalf of Meghan.

 

[AdmirerUS]

JMO. There is nothing in this story that is consistent with past BRF behavior. It's made up of whole cloth and either planted by someone who wanted attention (inside BP) or someone who wanted to sell clicks (the rest of the world).

And, again, IMO, the fact that they invented a green tiara was purposeful to create an imaginary rift between the part of the family that did not wear a green-stoned tiara and the part of the family that did wear a green stoned tiara.

And that Russian bit was just to grab the attention of royal watchers who love bright shiny things. Remember how this whole invent a lie thing works. Lie BIG and then see how many people fall for it.

Haven't we all spent enough time on social media to realize how often someone is just trying to have us on these days? Think this through folks, it's a pile of dung and someone is just ROFL at how many people are falling for this story.

JMO.

 

[Pranter]

There's no reason at all..not a shred of any evidence that Meghan ever wanted to wear an emerald in her tiara. This is fabrication to sell stories and a book.

Nothing in Meghan's history indicates she's ever been a fan of emeralds or wanted to wear them. Nothing about her we know indicates there would be any type of behavior they are talking about. It makes zero sense that this supposed exchange about the tiara with the Queen ever took place...if the Queen has an issue with Harry or whomever she's not going to go about it the way it's being implied/suggested.

I feel sorry for folks who believe this type of nonsense....they must already have a negative view of Harry/Meghan and this fits the narrative to justify their feelings.



LaRae

 

[ACO]

Valentine is even more confusing trying to explain his story. He basically saying the "Meghan wants, Meghan gets" reference from Jobson is about this tiara that was offered and then jacked away. Then he says "Maybe it was Harry being the pain and not [Meghan]." Please pick a story and stick with it.