Meghan Markle's Wedding Tiara

[Queen Claude]

Valentine Low‏ @valentinelow 1h1 hour ago
Replying to @Legallycam225 @danwootton
I believe Dan got it right. I've received separate, independent evidence backing up his story. Note too that Harry should take much of the blame. And to those who regard this as an anti-Meghan conspiracy, perhaps they should read my recent positive piece on her.


Valentine Low‏ @valentinelow 54m54 minutes ago
Replying to @_liaaca
I received separate, independent evidence that he was right. Questions remain: how much was Harry being a pain, rather than her? Why was a tiara offered, then withdrawn? And which one?


Valentine Low‏ @valentinelow 41m41 minutes ago
Replying to @aeduko @Legallycam225 @danwootton
I can say with hand on heart that the evidence came from someone who has no interest in doing her down. Rather they were surprised by her - and equally importantly Harry's - behaviour.


Valentine Low‏ @valentinelow 38m38 minutes ago
Replying to @_liaaca
That is entirely your right. But please note, there are lot of "unnamed sources" in journalism. Read the political pages, for instance. Unnamed does not mean fictitious.


Valentine Low‏ @valentinelow 32m32 minutes ago
Replying to @royal_suitor @aeduko and
Robert Jobson's book on Charles recounts how the Queen gave Harry a dressing down for his rudeness to palace staff before the wedding. Does not mention tiaras, but it is clearly the same incident.

 

[JuliannaVictoria]

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.

He took bits and pieces from Jobson's book, added it with some tabloid headlines from the Sun and is trying to present it as fact in the Times. I think he's going to be doing a lot more back-pedalling because nothing is adding up. The narrative is completely false, and then to drag the Queen into the false narrative.

I'm betting the lawyers are out and heads are rolling right now with the amount of back tracking VL is doing.

 

[Terri Terri]

It doesn't even matter anymore that there is backtracking going on! The damage against Meghan and Harry has aleady been done because it has been repeated as fact by other media!

 

[JuliannaVictoria]

It doesn't even matter anymore that there is backtracking going on! The damage against Meghan and Harry has aleady been done because it has been repeated as fact by other media!

I agree, and it's a shame. If this all proves to be false which I believe has been exaggerated and blown out of proportion, they will issue their "apology" in some remote section of their papers where no one will see it and move on with next set of nonsense.

I for one will not give this any more clicks. I am subscribed to the Times, but after this, I'm seriously thinking of ending my subscription. I don't pay money to read tabloid trash that needs retraction in so called reputable News Papers.

 

[Madame Verseau]

This is starting to run away from these hacks. They must be in hot water now. Name your snitch and have him go on the record, on camera, or admit you cooked this story to get clicks and book sales.

 

[Terri Terri]

That is not going to happen!

 

[ACO]

It is just funny because we just had a story of how Meghan hugged people too much and that she was breaking protocol and needed to check herself in that regard. And now she is being labeled a bully of the staff. I just can't keep up.

I also find it interesting that Valentine Low contacted one of the royal fans who specializes in the jewels on twitter. He doesn't reference her opinion but she made it clear she doesn't believe the story based on the history and went into great detail of the jewels that could be in question. I guess she didn't give him what he needed.

@valentinelow @OrderofSplendor Could you please follow me so I could DM you?

If interested in her details of the jewels go to her page. She really lays it out.

I also forgot the Times and Sun have the same owner.

 

[tommy100]

Ironically, despite never usually buying a newspaper, I'm visiting my parents who do and they newspaper of choice is the Times.
The article does refer back to the Sun article about half way into it.

The article makes it clear that "Meghan was shown a shortlist of 5 or 6". She picked an emerald one but "the Palace later had concerns about its provenance and asked the duchess to choose from the others"

"The Duchess was said to have insisted that she wanted her first choice" apparently "both the Queen and Angela Kelly were taken aback at how forcefully the couple pressed the issue, with Prince Harry leading the charge."

It refers back to the Sun article once and says that the article from the Sun quotes from Jobson's book.

TBH I'm more bothered by what tiara they are referring to, even the Times points out the most likely candidate - the Vlad - has been more many times by the Queen, so is this another unknown emerald tiara.

 

[Pranter]

This is a fabrication so the whole question is moot tommy100



LaRae

 

[AlowVera]

Why would you give her a choice of an unvetted tiara in the first place?


That is incompetence on the Palace's behalf. So in their enthusiasm to taint Meghan they also taint themselves as incompetent.


Not only that the Queen is painted as petty trying to put down someone for wearing a veil. But then she allows the veil to take a prominent place in her documentary and also be used as a tourist attraction.


This story is not important and yet the timing is highly suspect. This is Remembrance weekend and yet they could of waited until after the somber engagements to print this article.


Their aim is to get at the Duchess and to create a wedge between her and the Royal family on such an important day Meghan will be blamed.


Wooten subsidized the Markle family and said that she should not worry about them but the royal family. He must be happy with himself, he can't use the Markles anymore so he moves on to using courtiers with agendas.

 

[Marlo]

Valentine Low‏ @valentinelow 1h1 hour ago
Replying to @Legallycam225 @danwootton
I believe Dan got it right. I've received separate, independent evidence backing up his story. Note too that Harry should take much of the blame. And to those who regard this as an anti-Meghan conspiracy, perhaps they should read my recent positive piece on her.


Valentine Low‏ @valentinelow 54m54 minutes ago
Replying to @_liaaca
I received separate, independent evidence that he was right. Questions remain: how much was Harry being a pain, rather than her? Why was a tiara offered, then withdrawn? And which one?


Valentine Low‏ @valentinelow 41m41 minutes ago
Replying to @aeduko @Legallycam225 @danwootton
I can say with hand on heart that the evidence came from someone who has no interest in doing her down. Rather they were surprised by her - and equally importantly Harry's - behaviour.


Valentine Low‏ @valentinelow 38m38 minutes ago
Replying to @_liaaca
That is entirely your right. But please note, there are lot of "unnamed sources" in journalism. Read the political pages, for instance. Unnamed does not mean fictitious.


Valentine Low‏ @valentinelow 32m32 minutes ago
Replying to @royal_suitor @aeduko and
Robert Jobson's book on Charles recounts how the Queen gave Harry a dressing down for his rudeness to palace staff before the wedding. Does not mention tiaras, but it is clearly the same incident.

"I can say with hand on heart that the evidence came from someone who has no interest in doing her down."

I have a problem with this. Then why talk to the Sun/the Times. So stupid.

 

[jacqui24]

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).

There was no catalogue. Or at least none that was shown to Meghan and Harry. They were very clear on how the tiaras were presented to Meghan. In person and at BP ready to be tried on.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

What is the point? In the end the bride wore a stunning diadem, which did fit her alike it has been waiting for her, in a dark cassette, all these decades, to grace HER and to unfold a magic splendour on thay sun-soaken day. It was breathtakingly beautiful and is in my top three of best royal wedding diadems.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

"I can say with hand on heart that the evidence came from someone who has no interest in doing her down."

I have a problem with this. Then why talk to the Sun/the Times. So stupid.

Valentine Low is The Times writer. He is trying to justify his story that he lifted from the tabloid.

 

[Countessmeout]

The story is a load of made up junk. There may be a source but a lying one.

We know from the palace, like Kate, Meghan was given a few to choose from plain and simple. This is just false drama being drummed up.

Other then rumors when they were still dating that Meghan wanted an emerald engagement ring there has been no evidence she likes emeralds. And she doesn't need to have access to big jewels yo wear emeralds.

Meghan has a well known style. And the sleek elegant tiara she chose suits her style. Not hard to believe the story she fell in love with it when she saw it.

 

[Nico]

Wow people had just gone crazy or what ?

And now for some the tiara in question could have bee the Vladimir tiara, a personnal tiara of the Queen herserlf, not less :

Tensions autour du choix d'un diadème ? - Noblesse & Royautés

I mean , HELLLLOOOOOO !!! That's just the usual rubbish served on a daily basis by a press not particularly well known for its reliability. So i presume we have to believe those kind of headllines now :

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/11/05/article-2228064-15DB3D5C000005DC-610_634x728.jpg

https://www.celebdirtylaundry.com/wp-content/uploads/Globe-Magazine25.jpg

https://mi621.files.wordpress.com/2...4d594cb5fcb7-mothers-death-princesa-diana.jpg

https://s1.gossipcop.com/up/2018/09/Meghan-Markle-Kate-Middleton-Secret-Feud.jpg

It's fashionable to scream "fake news" , but in that case it's so damn obvious.

And no i don"t think there is a conspiracy theory about tarnishing Meghan's image. It's just the usual daily trash about the Royals. And i completely don't understand why it's getting blown out of proportion like this.

 

[Empress Merel]

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.

 

[Susan999]

Another poster pointed out that (if this story has any truth in it) the Skripal poisonings may have been a factor in concerns over the tiara's Russian origin. Since the poisonings were in March, isn't it possible that Meghan chose the tiara before then, and later had to choose another (after the poisonings)?

 

[Zaira]

This story is ridiculous. I am shocked the Times would run it but they are owned by Newscorp too, like the Sun.

I can believe that tempers were very short in the two weeks before the wedding. I cannot even begin to imagine how stressed they were with everything going on with her father. I mean I had to stop following the wedding up until the day of (and this was a wedding I have been looking forward for years being a Harry fan) because of how triggering the whole Markle mess was. Imagine being Meghan? and Harry being her partner and struggling to support her with the onslaught coming hourly? SO maybe tempers flared and frustration was let out. They are only human, and even normal weddings tend to bring out the tempers VERY quick in my experience, even with the best of people.

As for the tiara, I can see Meghan wanting an emerald one, tbh. I thought when I saw her look that it was tailored made for a tiara with color and a green tiara with the flowers on her veil would have been stunning. I can see her being disappointed if she made a choice and configured her whole wedding look around a certain tiara only to be told weeks before the wedding (which is what the article makes it seem like) that that tiara is no longer available anymore. I probably would have insisted too! But which tiara? The Grenville? If there were concerns about the provedance in May, wouldn't those concerns still be around in the fall for Eugenie too? I know the Sussex wedding was higher profile but still. And I really, really doubt it was the Vlad because that is not at all Meg's style nor would the Queen loan something of that level for a wedding tiara (to anyone).

I do not for one second see her OR Harry being rude to Angela Kelly. No way. Harry and William may get short with their dad or his staff (supposedly), but the one consistent bit of reporting we get is how they never ever ever disrespect the Queen. Getting rude with someone like Angela Kelly would absolutely be disrespecting the Queen, given her closeness to QE2.

 

[Nico]

Another poster pointed out that (if this story has any truth in it) the Skripal poisonings may have been a factor in concerns over the tiara's Russian origin. Since the poisonings were in March, isn't it possible that Meghan chose the tiara before then, and later had to choose another (after the poisonings)?

There's a WHOLE exhibition called "Russia: Royalty & The Romanovs" opening today at the Queen's gallery at Buckingham Palace.
The Skripal poisonings crisis is probably less acute than last march but it is still fimly in people's mind.
Still the British Monarchy and the royal Collections are not in the least concerned about any backlash from showing items strongly related to Russia.
So a Tiara with an "hypothetical" small link to Russia would have caused a palace crisis ?
Ah ah ah give me a break !

 

[jacqui24]

There's a WHOLE exhibition called "Russia: Royalty & The Romanovs" opening today at the Queen's gallery at Buckingham Palace.
The Skripal poisonings crisis is probably less acute than last march but it is still fimly in people's mind.
Still the British Monarchy and the royal Collections are not in the least concerned about any backlash from showing items strongly related to Russia.
So a Tiara with an "hypothetical" small link to Russia would have caused a palace crisis ?
Ah ah ah give me a break !

That and Romanovs (who previously owned the tiara) has nothing to do with the current Russian government. And everyone knows HMQ owns Russian jewels. It’s not exactly a state secret.

 

[Kataryn]

Now that The Times ran with the story I guess we will soon see the queen honour Meghan and Harry in some way, for I really really doubt that even if there was a grain of truth in it, the queen would want the people to think Meghan was anything but a asset to the Royal family - which she is, with a child coming and that success down under. IMHO, of course.

 

[Terri Terri]

The Queen does not have to do anything! The royal family will carry on as normal. This is Remembrance weekend and there are far more important things to do and think about.

 

[Nico]

Now that The Times ran with the story I guess we will soon see the queen honour Meghan and Harry in some way, for I really really doubt that even if there was a grain of truth in it, the queen would want the people to think Meghan was anything but a asset to the Royal family - which she is, with a child coming and that success down under. IMHO, of course.

If the Queen had to honour a member of the BRF each time a phony story is running about him/her, the whole firm would be knights of the Garter by now.

 

[Leopoldine]

There's a WHOLE exhibition called "Russia: Royalty & The Romanovs" opening today at the Queen's gallery at Buckingham Palace.
The Skripal poisonings crisis is probably less acute than last march but it is still fimly in people's mind.
Still the British Monarchy and the royal Collections are not in the least concerned about any backlash from showing items strongly related to Russia.
So a Tiara with an "hypothetical" small link to Russia would have caused a palace crisis ?
Ah ah ah give me a break !

Well, say for instance that Queen Mary acquired some Russian Imperial jewels back in the 1930's when the Soviet Government under Stalin was quietly selling off part of the collection. That would be a provenance best left unexamined.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Well, say for instance that Queen Mary acquired some Russian Imperial jewels back in the 1930's when the Soviet Government under Stalin was quietly selling off part of the collection. That would be a provenance best left unexamined.

Why? Better that the jewels are back with relatives in a known location than scattered to the 4 winds in various hidden collections.

 

[Gawin]

Well, say for instance that Queen Mary acquired some Russian Imperial jewels back in the 1930's when the Soviet Government under Stalin was quietly selling off part of the collection. That would be a provenance best left unexamined

 

[Nico]

Well, say for instance that Queen Mary acquired some Russian Imperial jewels back in the 1930's when the Soviet Government under Stalin was quietly selling off part of the collection. That would be a provenance best left unexamined.

Nonsense ! It's a well known fact that Queen Mary acquired many Romanovs pieces during the 30's.

There's is even a dedicated page about it on the Royal Collections website !

https://www.rct.uk/collection/themes/trail/faberge-in-the-royal-collection

Exemple for the famous Fabergé eggs : " Many of the imperial eggs were confiscated during the Revolution of 1917 and later sold to dealers and collectors in the West. Eight have disappeared and never been recovered. The three in the Royal Collection were acquired by King George V and Queen Mary in the 1930s."

 

[Tilia C.]

Please do keep on the topic of Meghan's wedding tiara.

 

[princess carmen]

The whole story is ridiculous, Harry said himself he was with her and the Queen and they chose the one that went the best with her gown.