The Queen has given Princess Beatrice an epic pre-wedding gift

I guess we know who her favorites are.

William and Bea.

Sorry, Harry and Eugenie!

Great news for Beatrice. She's a good girl and keeps getting sabotaged with less-than-good news from members of the family. Give Bea the spotlight on her day. Very nice of the queen.

I like how QEII keeps throwing out perks to grandkids that stay on her good side; she's still pretty shrewd for an old gal

Sounds like Harry is officially DEAD to QEII.

Sorry, Smeghan!

That is a lovely gesture. Mazel.

Damn, you know the Meghan stans are going to lose their minds, if this is true. I will be waiting with popcorn ready.

It's not as epic as all that. Poor Bea is trying to have a princess's wedding but one in which her infamous father is less front and centre than he was at Eugenie's wedding.

The Meghanstans have already lost their shit on CB, accusing BP and the Queen of deciding that while an 8th in line with a disgraced father merits a "London wedding", Harry and his divorced 36 year old American divorcee did not. They think it was William's "rage" at Harry's choice of a bride nixed the ole Westminster Abbey, carriage ride through London to cheering crowds, BP balcony kiss, etc.

What they either miss or refuse to admit is that actually, Bea isn't getting the kind of wedding that either the Harkles OR the Cambridges got. There isn't going to be any carriage ride through the streets, there isn't going to be a BP balcony appearance, the venue is likely to be the Guard's Chapel, which isn't as big or grand as St. George's Chapel, and will allow Bea to have a luxe but private wedding and a grand reception that Gran, not Dad, is going to pay for.

Meanwhile, the downtrodden Meghan Markle got a hugely public, televised wedding at a beautiful historic venue; the carriage ride through the streets; and an elegant reception at the beautiful Frogmore House . . . all paid for by Charles.

She WAS a divorcee, you know, and already on the shady side of 35 - it was ONLY because Harry is Charles' son that Meghan that much of a royal wedding.

But no . . . Bea, the Queen's flesh and blood granddaughter no less than Harry is her flesh and blood grandson, who is looking at a wedding marred by her disgusting twat of a father, is getting TOO MUCH by having Gran throw her a wedding reception at BP after what is likely to be a seriously downgraded private wedding, even though a "London" wedding.

Meghan didn't get enough! The $32 million in security the taxpayers shelled out, pushing Eugenie and Jack's wedding back six months to accommodate Meghan and Harry in spring at St. George's, the carriage ride, the Givenchy gown, the reception at Frogmore House . . .

No no no no no no no no no! It wasn't London, it wasn't what William the Heir to the Throne got! Meghan the c-list divorced 36 year old actress marrying the sixth in line deserved everything Kate got!!!!!

Get off your fucking delusional high horses, Kaiser and the rest of you delusional lot at CB - yes, we know you read DL.

Bea is getting a smaller, more private wedding, with no carriage ride, no television cameras, and as little public fuss as possible, and yeah, it will be in London.

It’s because the British are RACIST, r7.

That’s the final word, always.

r7 needs a hobby.

[quote] They think it was William's "rage" at Harry's choice of a bride nixed the ole Westminster Abbey, carriage ride through London to cheering crowds, BP balcony kiss, etc.

I actually think St George's Chapel is a nicer venue than Westminster Abbey.

That was quite a mouthful, R7.

R10 - I rather agree. St. George's is beautiful, and Windsor in the spring green and picturesque.

I would bet that if William weren't the next heir, and could have chosen for himself, he'd have picked St. George's as well. Instead, he had only two choices: St. Paul's or Westminster Abbey.

And I'll wager that however grand Buck House may be, Frogmore House is even lovelier for a wedding reception with those grounds, at least from what I saw of the Phillips' reception there.

I wonder if they’ll get the apartment in Kensington that Meghan wanted.

So it looks like not only the wedding reception, but the WEDDING ITSELF will be at Buckingham Palace!

[quote] Princess Beatrice and Edoardo Mozzi Will Reportedly Have Their Wedding at Buckingham Palace

Original Story, February 4:

It’s been 84 years since Princess Beatrice announced her engagement to Edoardo Mapelli (kay, fine, it’s only been since September), and the recent drama among the royal family has definitely complicated things.

Basically, Beatrice hasn’t been able to announce her wedding date due to the ongoing scandal with her dad, Prince Andrew, not to mention the drama surrounding Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s royal exit. And The Sun reports that she’s “furious” about the big reveal being put off.

“The decision has been delayed repeatedly because of all the issues, but finally they have something that seems to work—and barring any problems, that should be when it goes ahead,” a source said. “The queen has asked everyone to come together to put on a united front.”

According to insiders, Beatrice and Edo will wed on Friday, May 29, and then have a reception at Buckingham Palace. The wedding venue itself, however, has yet to be confirmed. “The press officers of all the palaces hope to portray the Beatrice wedding as the big event that brings the family back together again,” a source says. “Aides know this will be a tough job, but it’s all they can do not just to save the wedding but potentially the monarchy’s reputation.”

Wow, all of this sounds so...uh, romantic. :|

Update, February 5:

We're getting a few more details about Princess Beatrice's wedding, you guys! People confirmed that the wedding will be taking place on May 29, like The Sun initially reported. The wedding reception will be held at Buckingham Palace, while their ceremony service will be somewhere close by, like the Royal Military Chapel (it's up the street from the Palace).

Apparently, the wedding is going to be a "low-key affair" which is what Beatrice and Edoardo have always wanted. Right, because having a palace wedding is totally the definition of "low-key!"

[quote]I wonder if they’ll get the apartment in Kensington that Meghan wanted.

She rejected it and ran off the Frogmore...and we all know how that worked out.

She likes her Andrew and his girls.

Well, as of today, it is official: Bea will wed in the Royal Chapel at St. James Palace on 29 May. I wonder if that is more a relief to her than a comedown. I assume there will be the usual assortment of crowds outside waiting to see the royals go in and out, but no carriage ride, no TV coverage, then just off to the reception in Buckingham Palace.

But I wonder if it's quite what Edo had in mind.

[quote]But I wonder if it's quite what Edo had in mind.

He's sticking with her.

They're a couple. They're starting to look alike.

Prince Louis was christened in the Chapel Royal at St. James. It's certainly elegant, but I doubt it will hold the number of guests that St. George's would have, and doesn't have nearly the "curb appeal" of St. George's.

This will probably be the smallest, most intimate private wedding in the BRF since Prince George married Mary of Teck there, later to become George V.

At the time, it wouldn't have been thought "small", but the grand royal weddings at the Abbey really came in in the 20th century with Prince Albert and Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon.

A check of the venue says it holds only 150 guests, which is quite small for the Queen's granddaughter compared to what Eugenie and Harry got. It is stated in the announcement that there will be no carriage procession or live television coverage (which is too bad, really, we don't get to choke on our scones watching those dreadful outfits walk in) and the reception will be held in the gardens of Buckingham Palace.

It will probably turn out to be enviably all to the couple's taste as there doesn't have to be any consideration to camera crews, or what shows up best on the telly, much less tension, no waving with smiles plastered on from a carriage when you know no one really gives f.a. about you, just slip into a limo for a five-minute ride to BP, and they will end by making the other couples wishing they could have had the same.

Except Meghan, of course, for whom nothing is ever good enough: pushing the Queen's granddaughter's wedding back six months to make way for her own; the $30 million bill to the taxpayers for security; the gorgeous historical venue in the spring to which 600 guests were invited, including people who otherwise wouldn't have returned Meghan's calls; the carriage ride; the Givenchy gown; the reception at exquisite Frogmore House; the Cartier diamond bracelet Charles gave her; Diana's huge aquamarine ring; and Queen Mary's Bandeau Tiara.

If it wasn't what Kate got, it wasn't working for her.

The York girls have always been close to The Queen. They’re nice girls and it’s unfortunate they have the parents that they have. Other than the fact that they’re perceived as aimless, they’re not known to be cunts or bullies.

R21 - Agree. Bea and Eugenie, incredibly, appear to be harmless if feckless, and people who have come into contact with them say they are sweet-natured and well-mannered.

Eugenie appears to have somewhat more going for her upstairs - they'd be fools not to being her slowly and gently forward, although she's probably anxious to start her family as she enters her thirties. Bea will probably be pregnant by Christmas, as she is already 32.

And the Queen allegedly loves the York sisters deeply. One of Meghan's biggest mistakes her first year was using Eugenie's wedding to telecast her pregnancy with her coat. She made a first-class enemy of Prince Andrew (and despite his later disgrace, don't think for a moment that he makes a weak enemy given his closeness to his mother), and it remains my opinion that the Tiaragate incident had made the rounds of the family, and that it was Andrew who tipped Jobson off about it so that it got into Jobson's bio of Charles, and leaked it to the papers as soon as the Sussexes got back from their ghastly Down Under tour. His timing was perfect, as Melissa Tabouti's highly publicised resignation from Meghan's employ after the tour came out at the same time, as the leaks continued about Duchess Difficult

Of course, Meghan's trolling stans never refer to the Maternity Coat Mean Girl Incident At The Queen's Beloved Granddaughter's Televised Wedding as a reason for suspecting that Meghan is actually a stupid bitch - criticism of her behaviour is all based racism.

So, are we taking wagers on the presence of the Sussexes at Bea's wedding?

My prediction: if there is a Sussex presence, it will only be Harry, with the caveat that Meghan may use it as an excuse to put in an appearance to retrieve another 90 days outside the UK to keep her UK citizenship application alive. Of course, she can always accompany him to the UK but not to the wedding. With any luck, she'll be pregnant again and can plead not feeling well the day of.

Meghan is going to be 39 in August. If she wants that second baby, now's the time.

But it's absurd not to acknowledge that her presence at that wedding will be viewed as a necessary evil and blight what is otherwise likely to be a uniformly happy occasion for the family. No matter what the Queen said, Meghan has to know what the family thinks of her, especially the Yorks.

Meghan was foolish enough to allow stories to leak in the last few months about how horrible she thinks Andrew is, so I doubt very much he would allow her anywhere near Bea's wedding.

I can imagine him defying the Queen herself on this score, pointing out that if this is to be a private family affair, he has the right not to use it for PR purposes to show that Harry and Meghan are "welcome" in the BRF. If there is one individual in the family for whom Meghan is not a "much loved member", it's Prince Andrew. This is his daughter's wedding, his other daughter's wedding was marred by Meghan's presence, it has been knocked down to a much less grand affair, I can see him drawing a line over an invitation to the Sussexes.

My prediction, neither Sussex at the York wedding.

.

[QUOTE] and that it was Andrew who tipped Jobson off about it so that it got into Jobson's bio of Charles, and leaked it to the papers as soon as the Sussexes got back from their ghastly Down Under tour

Yep, and Sarah leaked too. They’re a united front, in both word and deed, when it comes to their daughters. For that I commend them.

Rofl at R20.

That's quite a lot of projection.

I'll bet you wear your little plastic tiara around your mother's basement, and pretend that YOU'RE the "real" Duchess of Sussex, getting porked by Harry.

What a pathetic little creature you are.

[quote] It will probably turn out to be enviably all to the couple's taste as there doesn't have to be any consideration to camera crews, or what shows up best on the telly, much less tension, no waving with smiles plastered on from a carriage when you know no one really gives f.a. about you, just slip into a limo for a five-minute ride to BP, and they will end by making the other couples wishing they could have had the same.

I agree. I can't understand why anyone, even a royal, would want more than 150 guests at their wedding. 150 sounds like overkill as it is. How well can you possibly know all those people?

R24, I agree. She is DONE with those people. It’s her MO to cut all ties and ghost forever. She’s done it to her entire family. Why would her husband’s family be any different?

R24 agree, Andrew will not want them there. But- they have to be invited, don’t they?

I hope we get lots of happy pictures of fancy people in pretty clothes!

I SHOULD HAVE HAD MY WEDDING FESTIVITIES AT BUCKINGHAM PALACE !!! IT'S FURTHER PROOF MY IN-LAWS HATE ME BECAUSE I'M BLACK.

R30 needs to be drawn and quartered, like they did to CUNTS in the old days.

Meghan is the wife of a PRINCE of the United Kingdom.

What's YOUR claim to fame, R30, besides being a loser, a dreg, a nothing, a nobody, and a pathetic racist creep?

R29, I’d imagine Bea would have the good manners to invite Harry, and that Harry would have the good sense to send his regrets and a lovely gift.

The Harkles will make it all about them and: 1. whine about how they weren't invited & now Harry is very sad 2. whine about how they were invited & the BRF won't respect their boundaries. 3. just continue to whine about one thing after another & Bea's wedding will just blend in with their other grievances & slights.

I just don't get the hubbub over being married at Buckingham Palace over Windsor. I've read that the Queen does not have warm feelings for BP and can't wait to get out of the place every weekend. IMO Windsor is infinitely more palatial and awe inspiring. Or is it that Beatrice is more interested in the increased media covered if the ceremony is at BP?

They'll time another gig so that the photos hit the papers on the morning of Bea's wedding. Meghan has no interest in attending, anyway, and Harry attending without her will look, well, like she hates them and they hate her.

Oh, wait . . .

Fuck the wedding.

We're going to the beach!

R35, prestige always has resided where the monarch's primary residence is.

And that is Buckingham Palace.

Windsor Castle offers some advantages, but it is inconvenient for evenings (although admittedly the drive isn't that bad when you're sober or have a driver).

Plus, there is a principle of relative rarity and association. Matching William in line for the throne is SOMETHING to these people. But if there were three in a row at BP a reception at Windsor would seem wonderful.

K

I think they'll go. But with strict instructions not to pull any stunts.

The Harkles are booked. There’s a “wealth conference” in Dubai that weekend. Hope you have a lovely marriage, Bea!

R39 - They don't take instructions from the BRF any longer.

And Prince Andrew would have to have had a gun held to his head before letting Meghan Markle anywhere near his daughter's wedding. All they've done since they jumped ship is throw shade at the BRF to which they owe their global marketability, and Meghan's camp has leaked one story after another talking about how awful it all was. The only card the Queen has here is that she is throwing the reception, and I can't believe she'd threaten to mar her granddaughter's long-awaited big day just to ensure that Harry and Meghan showed up.

Meghan has burnt to many bridges with the family already.

The Queen's pathetic We're Still Happy Families" assertion is way past its sell date.

Best to leave it alone.

R41 Are you thinking they won't be invited? There's just no way they wouldn't get an invite....

An epic pre-wedding gift? Brains? Meaningful employment? Non-grifter parents? Possibilities are endless...

She should grant official recognition of Eduardo's Italian title.

Christ, when is getting to use the house for your wedding a gift, I’m sure she wants something from the registers or the vault from grandma for the special day.

This has nothing to do with Meghan and Harry, insane anti-Meghan freaks. I think the gesture is nice of the Queen considering all the horrors related to Beatrice's father and the wedding issues around it.

"Prince Andrew Will Walk Princess Beatrice Down the Aisle at Her Wedding"

Princess Beatrice is set to have her father by her side for her wedding day.

A source confirms to BAZAAR.com that Prince Andrew will give Beatrice away at her upcoming nuptials to property tycoon Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi. The couple—who made their first public appearance together last March—have confirmed a wedding date for May 29th, and will be married at the Chapel Royal at St James’s Palace. Their reception will take place at the gardens of Buckingham Palace. The last royal couple to host a wedding reception at Buckingham Palace was Prince William and Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge in 2011.

Prince Andrew became a controversial figure in the royal family last year after his connections with the late, convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein were brought back to light. In November, he participated in a televised BBC interview where he addressed his friendship with the disgraced financier and denied accusations of a sexual encounter with a 17-year-old girl. Shortly after, he announced he'd be stepping down from royal duties for the "foreseeable future." He has kept a relatively low profile since then.

Though Beatrice has remained tight-lipped on the controversy surrounding her father, she has been open about the excitement of her upcoming wedding to Mozzi.

"We are both so excited to be embarking on this life adventure together and can’t wait to actually be married," said the princess in a statement. "We share so many similar interests and values and we know that this will stand us in great stead for the years ahead, full of love and happiness.”

Wait isn’t Andrew banned from the royal residences?

I thought Andrew couldn’t leave home with the ankle monitor?

Sorry but she is really unfortunate looking

From a public relations standpoint, Andrew should absolutely walk her down the aisle, with gusto! If there’s one thing we all should have learned by now, it’s that the best way to deal with scandal is to BRAZEN IT OUT.

It was a perfect child rape. Perfect. Witch trial!

My god Bea has that inbred British look, like a big eyed bug looking right at you.

----

The Chapel Royal at St. James Palace is a beautiful but quite modest space compared to the other venues that should have been available to Beatrice. Still, Queen Victoria and and Prince Albert as well as King George V and May of Teck, later Queen Mary, married there.

Bea's bug eyes and small chin/lower jaw looks are typical of Her Hanoverian ancestry. Check out the early photos and less flattering paintings of Victoria. Wish her well. What unfortunate timing for her and her gigolo husband.

Bea's bug eyes and small chin/lower jaw looks are typical of Her Hanoverian ancestry. Check out the early photos and less flattering paintings of Victoria. Wish her well. What unfortunate timing for her and her gigolo husband.

That’s a cool thing, to look like your ancestor Queen Victoria.

[quote] The Chapel Royal at St. James Palace is a beautiful but quite modest space compared to the other venues that should have been available to Beatrice. Still, Queen Victoria and and Prince Albert as well as King George V and May of Teck, later Queen Mary, married there.

Queen Victoria selected the comparatively small Chapel Royal because May was a recycled fiancee. Had the Duke of Clarence not died and he and Princess May been married, the venue would have been more capacious.

Is there a bandeau tiara with rubies in it? I hope Bea gets to wear that.

The Harkles have to be invited to Beatrice's wedding despite what Andrew thinks. First of all, Andrew probably likes Harry. Sarah like Harry. They've gone skiing together at the York's house in Verbier, Switzerland. Charles would never stand for not inviting his son, Harry, to the wedding. Same goes for the queen. She would not want any further scandal befalling the royal family and having it be made public. They probably all can't stand Markle, but they have to invite her because they don't want to be accused of racism even though it wouldn't be racism. They just cant't stand her.

My guess: Harry will show up alone. Markle will make some phony excuse that she can't travel with the horribly-named kid, Archie, since he hasn't been feeling well. Or they both haven't been feeling well. Whatever the case, Markle is not going. She doesn't want to go, and the family doesn't want her there...and everyone knows it. Harry will have fun without her.

R42 - I was wondering that myself. I wouldn't be surprised if Andrew put his foot down on that, too, probably defying Charles more particularly.

After all, the Queen may be throwing the reception, but Andrew is likely paying for everything else: the gown, the flowers, the bridal parties' outfits, the music, a pre-wedding splash for guests, Bea's trousseau for what will likely be an extensive honeymoon far, far away.

Bea, when slim, has a nicer figure than Eugenie, who inherited not only her grandmother's beautiful Celtic colouring, but short stature and her tendency to dumpiness.

It would be nice if Bea could resist her compulsion toward Victorian frills, ruffles, ribbons, and lace, and surprise us with a scooped neckline, a fitted bodice with little decoration, long sleeves, and a ballroom skirt where the emphasis is on the beauty and sweep of the material, not its frou frou decorations. She has a decent bosom and waist, and she IS over 30 - it would lend her a small waist, a delicate top, and grandeur below the waist.

Yes, the Queen has tiaras with rubies, at least two, but neither are in particularly Victorian style. I'm not necessarily a fan of jewels matching hair colour, as they're unlikely ever to really tone or match. I would go with sapphires to set off Bea's very large blue eyes, instead.

Perhaps Bea will opt for the York, or the one the BRF bought her mother for her wedding - which is pretty but undistinguished and has been left unused since the fall of the York marriage.

Say what you will about the Queen, but she is invariably correct. I think that Harry and Meghan will receive an invitation, because that it the correct thing.

What Harry and Meg do with it, I don’t know. I think the correct thing would be for Harry to attend, bearing Meghan’s transparent regrets. Harry and Meghan’s brand seems to be “defy stuffy tradition!”, so it’ll be interesting.

I really want Meghan to go, for the drama.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

Her scared expression eyes need some serious brown liner to deflect how 😳 big they are.

yes R44, that would be a magnificent gift. Why shouldn’t Bea get to be a Countess too?

[quote] Whatever the case, Markle is not going. She doesn't want to go,

I'm glad she won't be there because then I can wear my favourite blackamoor brooch.

It is Charles who will be the sticky wicket for the guest list re Andrew. Charles will be furious if his son is not invited and the message is broadcast that Harry is unwelcome and, contrary to the Queen's statement, not "much loved members of the family". Of course, it is Meghan who is unwelcome, not Harry, but in Andrew's shoes, I would say that as Meghan already marred one of his two daughter's weddings, it isn't fair to expect him to risk his other daughter's wedding because Charles has a wayward son and a horrible woman as his daughter in law.

Unfortunately, they cannot have Harry without Meghan, and it is Meghan who is the sticking point.

The Chapel Royal only holds 150 people, this is an entirely private wedding with no live television coverage, and Andrew loathes Meghan. Andrew has the better argument here. Harry and Meghan are Charles's problem, and he should just give it up. Eugenie's wedding was put back six months to accommodate Harry and Meghan, Meghan played her maternity coat stunt at the wedding, Bea has had to give up enough due to the family's recent debacles, including Andrew's own.

Charles needs to drop it. The family and the wedding are better off without the Harkles there.

[quote] Andrew loathes Meghan

Only because she's not underage and fuckable.

No way in hell Andrew is giving them an invite. Its just not happening. She may have married an ugly, balding dimwit prince r32, but Meghan is still a z list nobody. She's like the scum on the bottom of your shoe that you can't get rid of. She's brought Harry down and made them both laughingstocks.

Is it possible with her Hollywood connections Meghan knows where the Epstein bodies are buried and what Andrew did and used it all to blackmail herself into the family and marriage with Harry?

What Hollywood connections? She was 6th on the call sheet on basic cable in Toronto. Nobody knew who the hell she was before Harry.

R72 This isnt a Darren Spelling production! Who the hell would be giving Meghan Markle inside industry info. Is she blowing someone other than her balding prince?

I hope that Bea gets to wear THE diamond and emerald tiara. She has ideal coloring for emeralds.

Don't the bride and groom decide who gets invited to their wedding?

[quote] Don't the bride and groom decide who gets invited to their wedding?

Not when Royalty is involved, Dear.

I think it would be a nice show of family solidarity if Beatrice wore the fine Edwardian tiara that was gifted to Sarah and Andrew from The Queen for their wedding. The two parents may be tacky but they seemed to have raised nice kids.

R74 No way Bea gets to wear the Vladimir. That is HM only till Camilla takes over the collection. Then Kate.

In fairness, this wedding may be royal, but it's also private and the venue is very small. In this case, the bride's and her father's private wishes may carry more weight than usual.

Meghan may not have Hollywood power connections, but she has sleazy SoHo House connections.

Most versions of “When Harry Met Meghan” involve SoHo House. There’s one where they met through friends of Bea.

The faces of both those daughters look so...innocuously fucked up to me.

They’re like fucked up Cabbage Patch kids with rodent teeth.

Andrew ought to adore the Harkles, and invite them to his daughter's wedding and make them guests of honor!

They were the ones who eclipsed his own scandal, knocked him right off the front pages and gossip blogs. He owes them forever, for that.

[quote] Darren Spelling

Oh, dear.

Bea won't wear the same tiara as her sister, or her mother's tiara. As her wedding is smaller and more private than her sister's, and she's on the queen's good side, the queen will offer her choice of royal tiaras.

How about this big aquamarine sucker? It'd look faaabulous with Bea's coloring!

[quote] Is there a bandeau tiara with rubies in it? I hope Bea gets to wear that.

The Queen has only one actual ruby tiara among her personal jewels and she wears it quite often, and it's ugly. There is also a ruby bracelet, part of a set which can be worn as a tiara, but it's small and odd looking. It belonged to the Queen Mother.

There is the ruby Indian Circlet Tiara originally belonging to Queen Victoria (with opals in the place of the rubies) which is not a personal piece, but part of the official Royal Collection. It was worn for decades by the Queen Mother and the Queen has only worn it once since her mother died. It's beautiful, but a bit large for the occasion.

[quote] Andrew loathes Meghan

The feeling is mutual, dear.

Andrew is a pedophile Prince.

Why would she want anything to do with him? He's disgusting.

R86, this is not a defence of Andrew but the allegations against him aren't that he had sex with someone who was under the age of consent.

R86, this is not a defence of Andrew but the allegations against him aren't that he had sex with someone who was under the age of consent.

No, they cannot possibly fail to invite Harry and Meghan. That would be wrong, and the fallout would be dreadful.

But please, please let Meghan decide to go. Hell, I hope she INSISTS on going. It would be too delicious. Particularly Andrew’s reaction.

Meghan and Harry won’t want to endorse Andrew’s crimes by appearing with him.

I’m surprised his daughter wants to!

Just a thought question. How valuable is jewelry?

Would you guys wear a tiara around the house? Is it just for showing off to other people? It's on your head. Unless you're looking at yourself wearing it in the mirror constantly, you won't enjoy viewing it.

Is it really just to signify a prominent stature? To get ooohs and ahs? This institution has never tolerated a male prince wearing a tiara. The stones in those tiaras were probably extracted out some colony and many people probably died over them. Just so people could feel fancy and go ooh and ahh.

If they don’t get invited, it’s a huge problem. If they get invited and do go, it’s a problem but manageable. If they’re invited and just he goes, maybe half a problem. So in any case they need to be invited, and they will be.

Will this be televised?

Why would Andrew dislike Meghan? He's probably only met her a few times. And he (along with the Palace) used her to distract from his pedophilia and disastrous interview by feeding them stories designed to redirect outrage from him to her. He should love Meghan.

Weddings are about the bride and the groom, not who else might be attending. Harry and Meghan will both go, and hold their heads high, because they have nothing to be ashamed about.

But why would they want to be publicly associated with the unsavoryness that is Andrew?

Just because the queen accepts the pedo rapist doesn’t mean everyone does.

Of course the Harkles will be invited to Beatrice's wedding. Whether they turn up will be another thing. I can imagine Harry going alone, as Meghan will have to stay behind in LA to look after Archie...

Count me as one who thinks they will be invited and hopes that they both attend.

R93 - No, it will not be televised. It is a completely private wedding, which is why I think it is up to the bride's family to decide whether or not to invite the Harkles, not TQ and Charles.

If they get invited and do go, it is not necessarily "manageable" R93, because Meghan isn't manageable. And, you forget that Meghan's camp leaked two stories in the last few months in which Meghan attacked Andrew, one just a couple of weeks ago: 31 January, on CB:

"Meghan Markle sees Prince Andrew as the “ultimate embarrassing uncle”, a royal insider claimed today. The former actress was already less than impressed by the Duke of York’s “stuffy” behaviour when they met – with the Jeffrey Epstein scandal only deepening the divide. And a royal source today told The Sun Online that Prince Andrew was one member of the Royal Family Meghan would not miss after she and Prince Harry quit as royals, moving to Canada for a new life.

They said: “Put it this way, she doesn’t view Andrew as one of the Family’s great assets and he’s not going to be one of the people she’s going to miss on her time away from the Windsors. She views him as the ultimate embarrassing uncle.”

It comes after it was claimed Meghan was left troubled hearing Prince Andrew’s car crash interview about his friendship with paedo Epstein – with the royal saying it was a “positive act to have sex with somebody” as a man.

The source added: “Meghan is not enamoured of Andrew at all. Not just because of his questionable attitude to women and how he referred to them in that awful Newsnight interview, in which he was talking in an almost alien language, as if all women were conquests. Meeting the real Andrew was even worse – she told a friend that she couldn’t see the attraction – he wasn’t exactly welcoming to her and that he was stuffy and pompous. And that he kept on making awful, puerile jokes – which he seemed to find hilarious.”.

Really, inviting her to his daughter's wedding is out of the question. I doubt Harry and Meghan even want to go and appear where they have to be civil to Andrew.

Charles will care, the Queen will be deeply regretful, but I think the private nature of this wedding lets the Yorks off the Sussex hook.

It took a pair of fresh, outsider’s eyes like Meghan’s to make everyone reevaluate Andrew.

Those daughters should be the next to distance themselves from him, but they’re career ass lickers, so I guess won’t be disinviting dad from the ceremony any time soon.

[quote]It took a pair of fresh, outsider’s eyes like Meghan’s to make everyone reevaluate Andrew.

No, it took a very ill advised televised interview and the following outcry from the British public that made everyone reevaluate Andrew. If the interview went well then Meghan would be pretty far up his ass.

[QUOTE] The stones in those tiaras were probably extracted out some colony and many people probably died over them. Just so people could feel fancy and go ooh and ahh.

the stones in Shaniqua’s great big 10 karat gold money sign necklace also were extracted out of some colony. What’s your point.

Well, in the unlikely event that they don’t receive an invitation, we will certainly hear about it.

Do we really care? I mean that Italians gonna drop her like a hot potato at some point. And he’s going to spend a lot of your money whatever she has. And then he’s going to leave her ugly ass for a hot girl or a hot boy.

[quote] They said: “Put it this way, she doesn’t view Andrew as one of the Family’s great assets and he’s not going to be one of the people she’s going to miss on her time away from the Windsors. She views him as the ultimate embarrassing uncle.” It comes after it was claimed Meghan was left troubled hearing Prince Andrew’s car crash interview about his friendship with paedo Epstein – with the royal saying it was a “positive act to have sex with somebody” as a man.

[quote] The source added: “Meghan is not enamoured of Andrew at all. Not just because of his questionable attitude to women and how he referred to them in that awful Newsnight interview, in which he was talking in an almost alien language, as if all women were conquests. Meeting the real Andrew was even worse – she told a friend that she couldn’t see the attraction – he wasn’t exactly welcoming to her and that he was stuffy and pompous. And that he kept on making awful, puerile jokes – which he seemed to find hilarious.”.

No matter what you think of Meghan, you have to admit this sounds like a pretty accurate assessment of Andrew.

But she was quite happy to deliver a speech to an audience that included Robert Kraft, who doesn’t have questionable attitudes to women at all. No, no, no, he loves his Orchids of Asia.

r98 "royal source" = Wills and Kate, using Meghan as a scapegoat again to say things they can't get away with saying.

[quote]R79 it's private and the venue is very small. In this case, the bride's and her father's private wishes may carry more weight than usual.

So, there will be enslaved, underage hookers?

[quote]Yes, the Queen has tiaras with rubies, at least two, but neither are in particularly Victorian style.

I think you're thinking of the Burmese Ruby tiara which is completely and totally all 70s despite all of its encrusted gems. The Oriental Circlet tiara would totally serve Bea and her marriage where Victoria and Albert took their vows. The Oriental Circlet was commissioned by Albert for his Queen and practically defines the Victorian era. Both the Queen and the Queen Mother have worn it, so if Bea gets to wear it on her wedding day, it would be a huge honor. And it looks the very definition of "Victorian."

r108 aren't rubies gauche in a wedding tiara, though?

"It took a pair of fresh, outsider’s eyes like Meghan’s to make everyone reevaluate Andrew."

That is the most ridiculous statement by a Meghanstanfrau to date.

EVERYONE, including his exasperated older brother, has known for decades that Andrew is a pompous, shallow, self-entitled arrogant twat. Andrew's Mum might be the only human on earth outside his ex-wife and two fond daughters with any other view of him, from his superior officers in the navy to his valet.

Yeah, it was only Meghan Markle who finally opened everyone's eyes to what everyone has known for years: the Queen's favourite and outrageously indulged second son is a fucking idiot.

R108 - You're right, I'd forgotten that the Oriental Circlet goes back to Victoria. That said, it's a bit spiky and the Queen still wears it. Except for lending Anne the fringe tiara for her first wedding, I think the Queen lends only tiaras she no longer wears. I think the Oriental Circlet might still be too grand for the granddaughter.

I was thinking, wouldn't it be a surprise if the Queen leant the Fringe to Bea - after all, Bea is Andrew's eldest daughter, it's probably the last royal wedding the Queen will live to see and Bea's wedding has been under the shadows of two major family crises. It would be a nice reward.

My guess, though, is that Bea will go with something flowery, something more in the line of the tiara they bought Fergie, or the Strathmore. The Oriental Circlet is beautiful but a bit spiky, like the Fringe. I don't think Bea's taste runs in that direction.

I understand the Strathmore has gotten very fragile; I can't imagine that they can't reinforce the base. But that, I suspect, would be much more like how Bea sees herself.

No way they get an invite, nor should they. The Sussexes are deeply unpopular there will be no "backlash". William and Catherine have better things to do than play media games with that garbage Harry dragged home from the gutter.

R104 - It's a second hand assessment by an unidentified "source" who claims to know that that is how Meghan sees him. Frankly, I doubt Meghan sees Andrew as anything in the way of an "uncle" and that she is well aware that their personal loathing is mutual.

And, again, it's nothing that everyone hasn't known about Andrew for decades. He's a creep. Here's a story I read about him loonnggggg before Meghan Markle or Jeffrey Epstein came on the scene:

Still a naval officer but off duty, Andrew piles into a bar with some friends and spots one of his superior officers. Andrew, never one to shy away from reminding people of his rank, and after doing so, tells the officer generously, "But you can call me, Andy."

"Thanks," the officer replied tersely, "And you can call me 'Sir'."

That's Andrew all over and his wife as well. They were a coarse, stupid, clueless match made in Heaven.

I truly was shocked when Andrew and Fergie got engaged. I thought he'd choose a much better looking woman.

Queen Elizabeth is the boss of the family and there's no way Harry, and therefore Meghan, are not invited to this wedding. Whether they attend is another story. This "not invited" speculation is silly. Sorry to ruffle any feathers, but that is just how it is.

Like porn actress girlfriend Koo Stark?

Above in response to

[quote]R114 I thought he'd choose a much better looking woman.

Bea’s namesake wore diamond stars and orange blossoms, that could be very pretty.

The Express is clearly reading DL: they have a piece up today about the BRF fearing Bea's wedding will be overshadowed by the Harry and Meghan Show.

It repeats what Meghan did at Bea's wedding and how they really don't want to invite them but of course if the Queen insists, they will.

Mind your spelling and punctuation, gents, the media are lifting our stuff and running with it.

^*repeats what Meghan did at EUGENIE's wedding (not Bea's)

Of all the in-laws, HM likes Sophie best. Sophie has worked her way up to a working royal, with the dingiest of titles.

Dude R112 (if I may indulge in a bit of LA speak) - the Queen and Charles are not going to ICE OUT Harry and his wife from this wedding.

[quote]R121 Sophie has worked her way up to a working royal, with the dingiest of titles.

Did she have any OTHER business opportunities?

Meghan didn't do anything wrong at Eugenie's wedding.

Its a private wedding. After her stunt at Eugenie's wedding no way in hell she gets an invite. She won't be there. Koo Stark was pretty, and it was soft core "porn". Different times. Don't know how she'd be as a wife but she had a nice life. I think she became a photographer.

Well, I hope (a clothed) Koo Stark is the wedding photographer.

Bow down to her if you like! Go on, bow down! Boo! Now down to the blood diamonds! Boo!

Boo!

Here's the Burmese Ruby Tiara. It's as ugly as fuck! I HATE it! Personally I think sapphires or aquamarines would suit Bea's coloring better, but if she must wear rubies, the Oriental Circlet would be a much better choice.

As for the Harkles… were Harry and Bea ever close? They're cousins of around the same age, for all I know they're close friends, or were.

Bea's wedding will not be televised. As a result, Markle won't want to attend.

Agree, rubies were the wrong idea...I was trying to suggest something on par with emeralds. Bea would look much better in sapphires (but does Kate have dibs on all sapphires?) or aquamarines. Pearls?

Bea is the last grandchild to marry and it will be quite a long time before the next generation. Might be the last wedding the queen ever attends...

The hell with Andrew, dammit. I wish Bea's wedding were being televised. I like Bea. And I want to see the whole happy, dysfunctional royal bunch except for that commoner bitch Markle.

Here's QEII's sapphire tiara, I don't know what it's called but it doesn't thrill me.

The Vladimir isn't my favorite, the design is too repetitive, but it does have emeralds that would look fab on Bea, and which her sister hasn't already worn.

I far prefer Queen Victoria's Emerald Tiara, which is an absolutely lovely design. And which Eugenie hasn't work, and which Meghan was refused. So I'm hoping she wears THIS tiara, and if I've ever said anything gayer in my life... oh, wait. Earlier today I was arguing that Ann-Margaret was working black tights with a shirt, before Edie Sedgewick.

Borrowing the Fife Tiara from the V&A would be easy.

[quote] I far prefer Queen Victoria's Emerald Tiara, which is an absolutely lovely design. And which Eugenie hasn't work, and which Meghan was refused. So I'm hoping she wears THIS tiara,

That won't happen. The tiara is currently on display at Kensington Palace on loan from the current Duke of Fife to whom the tiara belongs. It does not belong to the Queen or the Royal Family. The tiara passed out of the Royal Family and to the descendants of the eldest sister of King George V, grandfather of the Queen.

[quote] I far prefer Queen Victoria's Emerald Tiara, which is an absolutely lovely design. And which Eugenie hasn't work, and which Meghan was refused.

Meghan was refused the Greville Emerald Tiara, which Eugenie wore for her wedding. The tiara was bequeathed to Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother (as was the Honeycomb Tiara now worn by Camilla) by the Queen Mother's friend, Mrs. Ronald Greville.

That Eugenie wore a tiara with colored stones is a break from tradition. Royal Brides traditionally only wear "white" jewellery at their wedding, meaning diamonds or pearls, or a combination.

The Queen's grandchildren were all very close, at one time. Here's Bea and her red boots, and Eugenie standing on the Queen's foot. I feel sad for Archie.

How about this pearl tiara? What's it called?

R138, That's the Queen Mary's Lover's Knot Tiara, which Catherine now wears.

That's the biggest tragedy r137, that Archie will be cut off from this amazing life and his family and he won't be able to grow up with his cousins or even know them. Meghan hates half her family, so it's not like Archie has much family in the US either. Archie has two grandfathers he's not allowed to see. He is not going to grow up a happy boy and Harry is going to regret that one day. Archie is going to be one fucked-up individual.

R136 the perfect solution for Bea would be Queen Vic’s sapphire and diamond coronet, but that has been gifted to the V&A. Maybe their arm could be twisted for one day. It would be quite delicious for the two York girls to wear tiaras with coloured stones. And despite the love HM undoubtedly had for her Grandmother, Queen Mary, it’s still a bit of shade for Rachel to have worn her tiara, because Mary was on her second engagement in the RF. She was passed onto George after Prince Eddie passed.

You fucking bitches know a hell of a lot about the family jewels of the Windsor’s-Mountbattens.

That coronet has lovely proportions.

Aquamarines are actually a wonderful idea for Bea's colouring (I'm the one who mentioned that sapphire might be better than rubies), even better than sapphires, as they are a blend of blue and green.

The problem is, Sophie Wessex has the only aqua tiara the Queen doesn't wear, and the one the queen wears is very stately.

I still think that if Bea's tastes were really ruling, it would be something flowery.

HM has apparently asked the Sussexes to return in March for the Commonwealth Service in Westminster Abbey, where they will again be next to Kate and William, it is alleged to be the last of a few royal duties they had left to do.

Which suggests that, contrary to my own views, those insisting they WILL get an invite to Bea's wedding are correct - much to Andrew's annoyance.

R142 - Yes, but we're only talking about one set of them. Because - we're gentlemen.

R137, I’m always Mary!-ing about Archie and his cousins. And how my mother did the same thing to my sister and me. It’s fucked up. Although we are in contact via FB, we missed out. My husband’s mother did the same thing to him. It’s what pathologically controlling people do.

Poor kid.

I think the ruby tiara contraption that HM had built in the 70s could be improved by removing the diamond rays in between each rose, see my illustration below. I hope Camilla has the same to overhaul this piece once it’s hers.

R130, Beatrice isn't the last of the Queen's grandchildren to get married. Edward and Sophie's kids are 16 and 12. However, it'll be a long time before either of them gets married, so it's true that Beatrice's may be the last wedding the Queen attends.

R128, I'm sure I've read that Beatrice and Eugenie grew up close to William and Harry (especially Harry, because of the smaller age gap). One of ITV's commentators on Eugenie's wedding said that Harry is Eugenie's favourite cousin. I don't know how accurate that is, though.

Me too R131. Who doesn't love a wedding? Especially one where the groom is easy on the eyes, and the potential for drama (Andrew! Sussexes! Italians!) is so high.

R149 - I thought it was Zara Phillips Harry was closest to, but who really knows. They were all in the same generation. I'm sure they're fond enough of Harry to want him there, it's his plus-one that is the problem.

R136 Not the Vladimir?

Fighting over tiaras - true or not, this is why we love the British Royal Family soap opera.

R132 Yes, I don't like those tiaras that go up and down and look like kittycat ears.

R131 - Well, we'll certainly see formal photos, but I admit it isn't as much fun as looking at the live-stream Entry of the Outfits and Hats - especially as it will be very late spring, so the outfits are likely to be more entertaining than in cooler times of the year.

Doubtless, the news media will take over rooms in nearby buildings with telephoto lens to get some glimpses of the arrivals, it just won't be live-streamed. Forget the nearby roofs, they'll have security forces on them.

R136 - Guilty as charged :)

How about Queen Mary's Sapphire Bandeau?

Its William that is close to Zara. The Queen Mary pearl tiara is the Cambridge Lover's Knot tiara. It was a favorite of Diana and is now Catherine's go to for tiara events.

Beatrice's eyes look hazel or green, not blue, in close-up photos.

R125, Meghan broadcast her pregnancy to the entire world when she wore that completely unnecessary blue maternity coat to Eugenie's wedding. It was the ultimate mean girl stunt and had the intended effect. It's no wonder the family dislikes her. If I were Beatrice, I wouldn't want her at my wedding.

I keep hoping for the Teck Crescent Tiara to make a comeback.

I would imagine having the events at Buckingham is more private, more controlled, more secure, less photos and paps.

Sorry, R158 was meant for R124.

R159 - Great call on the Teck Tiara - that's exactly the kind of thing I envision Bea loving. The Sapphire Bandeau isn't a bad call either, except for the fact that Eugenie and Meghan BOTH wore bandeau tiaras so it's getting a bit much.

I do hope the Teck or the Strathmore gets pulled out of mothballs, they will suit Bea to a T especially if she goes all Victorian with the bridal ensemble.

Info on the Strathmore Rose Tiara (sorry, I do not know ow to post links, but the info is from the site called The Court Jeweller).

"The tiara takes its name from the Queen Mother’s family — she was born Lady Elizabeth Bowes Lyon, daughter of the Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne. When she married the Duke of York in 1923, she wasn’t yet destined to be queen, but her parents decided a new duchess needed a new tiara regardless. They gave her this floral piece, which was bought from Catchpole and Williams, a dealer based in London. In The Queen's Diamonds, Hugh Roberts notes that although the piece was purchased in the 1920s, it was made in England in the late nineteenth century. He also reveals that the flowers, which can be removed and worn as brooches, could originally be swapped-out for five collet-set sapphires."

the most useful tiaras are the ones that can taken apart to make brooches, necklaces, bracelets etc as the mood strikes the wearer.

[quote] No way they get an invite, nor should they

WRONG! Looks like the Queen disagrees with you, little Miss Know-it-All:

Meghan Markle and Prince Harry could be returning to the U.K. next month for their last round of official royal engagements.

Queen Elizabeth II reportedly requested that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, who will no longer be using their “royal highness” titles, join the royal family for the annual Commonwealth service at Westminster Abbey on March 9, according to The Sunday Times.

Meghan, 38, and Harry, 35, are expected to attend the event with their son Archie, who will have just turned 10 months old.

Following the appearance, the couple will return to Canada where they are beginning to settle into their new non-royal life after their decision to step down as senior members of the royal family.

The family of three has been staying in a $14 million mansion on Vancouver Island, where Meghan enjoys the scenery on hikes with her beagle Guy and the couple’s Labrador. “They are enjoying living a quiet life,” an insider recently told PEOPLE. “They go for long walks, they do yoga, and Meghan cooks. They are real homebodies who love to chill out with Archie and the dogs.”

But last week, the homebodies took a quick trip to Miami where they made their first joint public appearance since transitioning from royal life at a private JP Morgan event.

PEOPLE confirmed that Harry gave a speech at the event. The father of one reportedly spoke about his experience with losing his mother, Princess Diana, and his decision to leave the royal family. According to The Times, Meghan also spoke at the event, focusing on her love for her husband.

Their new life has brought Meghan much closer to her circle of friends, as well as her mother Doria Ragland, who lives in Los Angeles.

Ragland, a social worker and yoga instructor, spent the holidays with Meghan and Harry in the weeks leading up to the couple’s announcement that they were stepping down as senior royals. And she’s been an important source of support ever since.

“She definitely gets a lot of her strength from her mother,” a close friend told PEOPLE of Meghan.

While the transition still holds many question marks for Harry and Meghan, the most important part has been focusing on being the best parents for Archie.

“Archie is the priority. It’s very much still about taking care of him and putting the family first. He’s a happy kid—he loves to laugh,” an insider said. “Archie and Harry have such a good time together. And Meghan is a great mom. She’s very much about tending to him. They are trying to live their life as regular parents.”

[quote] No way they get an invite, nor should they

WRONG! Looks like the Queen disagrees with you, little Miss Know-it-All:

Meghan Markle and Prince Harry could be returning to the U.K. next month for their last round of official royal engagements.

Queen Elizabeth II reportedly requested that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, who will no longer be using their “royal highness” titles, join the royal family for the annual Commonwealth service at Westminster Abbey on March 9, according to The Sunday Times.

Meghan, 38, and Harry, 35, are expected to attend the event with their son Archie, who will have just turned 10 months old.

Following the appearance, the couple will return to Canada where they are beginning to settle into their new non-royal life after their decision to step down as senior members of the royal family.

The family of three has been staying in a $14 million mansion on Vancouver Island, where Meghan enjoys the scenery on hikes with her beagle Guy and the couple’s Labrador. “They are enjoying living a quiet life,” an insider recently told PEOPLE. “They go for long walks, they do yoga, and Meghan cooks. They are real homebodies who love to chill out with Archie and the dogs.”

But last week, the homebodies took a quick trip to Miami where they made their first joint public appearance since transitioning from royal life at a private JP Morgan event.

PEOPLE confirmed that Harry gave a speech at the event. The father of one reportedly spoke about his experience with losing his mother, Princess Diana, and his decision to leave the royal family. According to The Times, Meghan also spoke at the event, focusing on her love for her husband.

Their new life has brought Meghan much closer to her circle of friends, as well as her mother Doria Ragland, who lives in Los Angeles.

Ragland, a social worker and yoga instructor, spent the holidays with Meghan and Harry in the weeks leading up to the couple’s announcement that they were stepping down as senior royals. And she’s been an important source of support ever since.

“She definitely gets a lot of her strength from her mother,” a close friend told PEOPLE of Meghan.

While the transition still holds many question marks for Harry and Meghan, the most important part has been focusing on being the best parents for Archie.

“Archie is the priority. It’s very much still about taking care of him and putting the family first. He’s a happy kid—he loves to laugh,” an insider said. “Archie and Harry have such a good time together. And Meghan is a great mom. She’s very much about tending to him. They are trying to live their life as regular parents.”

Radlan. Doria Radlan. Aka Doria Ragland.

we knew that they had one more engagement though, didn’t we? They lose the HRH officially after this engagement

How many tiaras originally belonged to Queen Mary? Girl must have been drowning in the things.

r22 it wasn't a maternity coat, she just happened to have it unbuttoned which pedantic cunts likened to announcing her pregnancy. Never put off to conspiracy what you can put off to a simple mistake. It's silly to think that Meghan was there long enough to start "mean girling" her new relatives, and is purely an invention of the press who seems inclined to blame her for everything.

(Such as, in this thread, reporting "Andrew hates Meghan" as fact, and saying none of the other royals wants her around / she's persona non grata - both pure inventions of fantasy).

R169, of course Markle signaled her pregnancy at the wedding. You're suggesting "a simple mistake" led to a display consistent with the belly-cradling creepiness this ghastly woman and her attention-demanding husband marketed? Markle is what Diana would have been without virginity, grace or lineage. She has no real self-respect, as shown by her grasping body-selling to get work and PR. At least Diana wasn't a whore until after her collision with the Windsors. Markle went into it for the typical gold-digging reasons, and her prego antics, in display at Euge's wedding, was part of her game.

And Andrew does dislike Markle. His only legacy in the family is his children, and he and Charles have battled over their positions since they were teens. Harry's choice of a "bride" - exactly the type of divorced and suspect adventuress that almost killed the family with David - booted his girls down the rungs.

Wedding reception at the palace or not.

r170 yes, yes, it was ALL a conspiracy of course and not at all just invented in your head because you're looking for any excuse to hate Meghan 🙄🙄🙄

I don't mind Meghan, but I do think the coat thing at Eugenie's wedding was deliberate. It's a very Hollywood thing to do - try to appear as though you're hiding your bump before you even have one, so you remain the centre of attention for longer as the press speculates. The coat does look like maternity wear; I remember there being loads of "Is Meghan pregnant?" comments on social media at the time.

But at the same time - it's done now, I'm sure it didn't ruin Jack and Eugenie's day for them in the slightest. It's been well over a year. They're hardly likely to be stewing over it, nor is Beatrice likely to exclude Harry and Meghan from her own wedding because of it.

r172 it's also quite possible she was just hot and didn't want to keep the coat buttoned up - remember, she was quite pregnant. Projecting "Hollywood" onto her every motive is just anti-Hollywood bias rearing its head.

Bea should wear a tiara with two huge peridots so her giant hyperthyroidistic orbs have some semi-precious company.

Eugenie has beautiful pure gray eyes.

If you look at the big picture of Beatrice above, she's got one pure gray eye, and one eye that's gray with a bit of brown around the pupil. So she won't be wearing a tiara that matches her eyes, unless the Queen has one made of smoky quartz somewhere.

[QUOTE] adventuress

now if THAT isn’t a pearl-clasping, salt-smelling, bromide-drinking expression worthy of Queen Mary, I don’t know what is. I am imaging R170 snapping her lorgnette shut at the end of the sentence

I love the tern "adventuress". . As a young boy, I could have imagine myself as "Daliah Lavi as The Adventuress."

“I love the term "adventuress". . . As a young boy, I could have imagined myself as "Daliah Lavi as The Adventuress."”

If that’s Daliah Lavi, she looks like she’s having a lot more fun than any of the royals do. Good for her.

R153 that’s part of the charm of those tiaras though. That ruby horror and the sapphire one worn by the Queen need serious revamping. The Brazilian Aquamarine is almost beyond redemption, but the glorious stones somehow save it. The Vladimir is clunky and ugly and always looks as though it needs a good clean. The only decent ones really are the Girls of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; the George IV State Diadem, the Fringe Tiara and the Cambridge tiara.

R173 she was hardly ‘quite pregnant’ at that wedding. She was barely pregnant.

Will Meghan upstage her like she did her sister?

To bad there will never be a Queen Bea!

R176 I believe that ‘Adventuress’ was one of the terms used by Queen Mary to describe Mrs Simpson. Were she alive today, doubtless she would repeat that description in regard to one Mrs Engelson.

So far, Meghan has upstaged every single event of the British Royal Family, since she married Harry.

That kind of sucks.

R183 - You are right, she did. When her eldest son, who was about as dimwitted as his descendants, Andrew and Harry, plaintively asked why Queen Mary refused to "receive" Mrs Simpson, the redoubtable Queen Mary replied, with a cold stare, "Because she is an adventuress."

Meghan was just past her 12-week scan when she wore that coat to Bea's wedding, as the Palace hurried to make clear as they rushed the announcement out after Meghan did an end run around them, and not for the first time.

The last lines of her interview in the Vanity Fair cover she got herself based on her relationship with Harry, months before they were formally engaged, made it clear that she was expecting to marry him.

Meghan made it clear with these sorts of a signals that she had neither the intention nor the desire to adhere to the constraints of royal life, didn't care what the family she was marrying into thought (despite being dependent on them for her status).

It's true that Eugenie and her husband probably shrugged off Meghan's Mean Girl stunt; Eugenie looks like a nice down to earth girl who was too happy to let something like that ruin her day, she was clearly thrilled, and she knew she'd knocked it out of the park with her bridal ensemble.

It was what the petty spiteful self-regarding gesture said about Meghan that was so disturbing, not the effect it had on Eugenie on her wedding day - and it earned Meghan the undying enmity of Prince Andrew, who paid her back by leaking the Tiaragate story.

Meghan just kept doing things that set off alarms, and, finally, the BRF had to acknowledge that Meghan had set fire to the house and respond.

As one aide candidly said in the coverage immediately after the announcement of their departure from the BRF, "The handwriting was really on the wall long ago."

H and M's pregnancy announcement was worse than the coat stunt. The announcement came just a few days after the wedding. The tabs and even legitimate news sources were still talking warmly about the wedding.when H and M decided the media h as d had enough of Eugenie.

R186 - In fairness, the Harkles had just set off on the big Down Under tour and Meghan would be cupping her bump for all she was worth, so there was no help for it, the announcement had to be made. But Meghan should have done the decent thing at the wedding and waited for the Palace to make the announcement. The only time the Palace rushed the announcement before 12 weeks was when Kate was so sick with morning-sickness in the first trimester of the first pregnancy that she had to be hospitalised; so they had to say something. Otherwise, as with all families, everyone waits for the first trimester to be safely past before going public.

The timing of the opening of the tour and the first few days after Eugenie's wedding wasn't anything anyone could have avoided. But at the wedding was just unnecessary grandstanding.

Palace refuses to confirm r164. Its hilarious that you use People magazine as a legitimate source. Try a little harder next time. R173 no, Meghan was not even 2 months pregnant at that point, so no reason at all for that stunt.

The thread about Peter and Autumn Phillips splitting up seems to have been deleted for some reason.

r180 / r188 she was four months pregnant I believe, and it was enough for people to start questioning if she actually was pregnant or not.

I don't have to "try" anything - your comments are pure fabrication.

You're projecting all these "signals" and little tricks that sound more like they come from the UK than they actually do the US. With hordes of media writers trying to spin every little nuance and wink and nod as some other meaning that's usually totally opposite what it appears to be. That may be how the Palace operates, but it has never seemed to be Meghan's style.

You wouldn't know, though, because you have applied the worst of about four different stereotypes to her, for "reasons".

Of course it makes sense in your head that these ridiculously complex conspiracy theories are actual reality. It helps give your boring lives some sadly missing flavor.

[quote] she was four months pregnant I believe, and it was enough for people to start questioning if she actually was pregnant or not.

Archie was born seven months after Eugenie's wedding, so that would be one hell of a long pregnancy! 😉

Five seconds of googling told me that Princess Eugenie was married on October 12, 2018. Archie Windsor-Mountbatten was born on May 6, 2019. There was almost seven months between the wedding and Archie's birth, which would put her around eight weeks along during the wedding, in a world where most people wait until 12 weeks or 3 months to make announcements.

IF YOU CAN'T BE ARSED TO SPEND FIVE SECONDS LOOKING UP DATES, SHUT UP ABOUT THE SUBJECT OF HOW FAR ALONG SHE WAS.

r192 there's been five different people saying she's a different date along in this thread. I agree! Everyone should look up the dates!

The press, however, was able to spot her pregnancy, or perhaps someone in the Palace who didn't like Eugenie decided to leak that she was pregnant. They only made the announcement after that because speculation was running rampant and obviously the Palace leaks like a sieve.

Or, Meghan broadcast it the world by wearing that coat because she likes attention.

r194 the coat was intended to draw attention AWAY from the baby bump. Good lord.

I want to hear a few more silly excuses. So far, it seems she was hot, there was a leak, she was super pregnant, she was trying to hide it, it was a simple mistake, the eagle-eyed press spotted it.

It was announced hastily that Meghan had just had her 12-week scan, so she was three months' along when she pulled that stunt. No one wears a big maternity coat like that at three months on. The moment she stepped out of the car, the wires were on fire and all the Meghanstans were crowing, "Pregnant! I knew it! I knew it!" It was a nonverbal announcement and the second time that Meghan did an end run around the Palace, making her own announcement before time.

Actually, it was the third time, if you count her (and you KNOW it was her doing) defiance of the Queen's explicit request that they withhold their announcement until the details of their exit had been finalised with Charles.

Instead, they rushed it out, as usual hoping that the public announcement would make it seem like their laundry list was done and dusted. Instead, they lost a good bit of it.

Because Meghan never listens to anyone but herself.

r196 there's a lot of perfectly plausible reasons that make far more sense than a secret conspiracy by Meghan to undermine some minor royal I'm sure she could give two shits about. It's ridiculous to assume otherwise.

The fact that there are FAR more plausible, normal reasons for it seems like your overblown theory about her upstaging Eugenie was a power move because Meghan came there to TAKE OVER THE ENTIRE MONARCHY and make them all "woke" 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

She just wanted attention, R198. That's all.

r199 and you know this from your mind reading? Your tarot spread? Your psychic hotline?

It's called "confirmation bias". When you have assumed Meghan is evil - for whatever reason (racism, anti-Hollywood bias, anti-Americanism, misogyny - pick one or more!) every single thing she does, no matter how minor, looks like a conspiracy or a Dark Plot to you.

No, I can totally believe that Meghan would drop hints about a pregnancy at another woman's wedding, for lack of anything better to do while there.

R189 - A new one is up "Another Windsor Marriage Hits the Skids"

r201 you're assuming she was so bored and jaded of royal life by that point that she was doing things to entertain herself. I cannot imagine that she wasn't completely overwhelmed at that point and was just trying to get from point A to point B and not be called out on it by the press.

I don't think Meghan is evil and I don't hate her, R199. She is an attention-seeker, though. I doubt she gave much thought to how it would affect Eugenie.

Anyway, over to the Peter and Autumn thread!

R198 - Oh ffs take off your rose-coloued glasses! There was no bump yet. She was only three months' along. She has access to a huge wardrobe. It was the Queen's granddaughter's Big Day AND it was being televised.

You really think there's some "logical" reason outside of letting the cat out of the bag without saying so whilst the world's eyes were on the very spot she was standing on??!!

Grow the fuck up if you want to come downstairs and talk to the grownups.

No there was no conspiracy to take over the monarchy.

There WAS, however, a glaring, uncontrolled, ill-natured determination to use the Queen's granddaughter's televised wedding to snag some PR for herself and her pregnancy.

If Kate Middleton had done it, you and every other Meghanstan frau out there would have been bawling LOOK KATE IS TRYING TO STEAL THE BRIDE'S LIGHT! so loud it could be heard on Mars.

It's a no-no. Royal Code 101-A: we do not step on other royals' news cycles.

R203, I'm assuming she was bored because other people's weddings are always boring! They're dull even when you like the participants, and this was a cousin-in-law's wedding full of stuffy old Brits who'd all known each other for the last decade.

And yeah, I'm assuming she found Royal life stifling from the get-go, because any middle-class American would.

r206 presumably in that rant you think you're one of the "grownups"? Hah! You're niggling creepers ranting over an otherwise innocuous actress and are way, WAY too invested in hating her and wishing for divorce and public beheading by the Queen than is healthy or sane. It's psychotic and there's clearly some strong emotional components for you that you seem to delight in taking out on the poor girl.

I'm looking forward to the debut of Edo, the newest cast member. He's easy on the eyes.

Has the dueling tiaras ended?

Exactly r206. This moron is just getting embarrassing now. She clearly did it for the attention. She lives and breathes for attention. Is it a prerequisite for Meghan supporters to be so incurably stupid or is that just their natural inclination?

R211, They put on their tan turtlenecks (because she's an Autumn, you know), and recite some verses from Pet Shop Boys songs, and join the cult.

Let’s get back to the topic at hand; will Sarah Ferguson show up to the wedding (a) drunk (b) high or (c) both?

I say drunk! Bubbly and cheerful!

Listen, with the groom's child by another woman to whom he was not married part of the bridal party, everyone will be somewhat grateful to Andrew for bringing this down to a more private event. As for Fergie - nothing, but nothing, seems to pierce that woman's gargoyle-ish armour. It's laughs all around no matter what. The only time I saw her not show a trace of that was Diana's funeral. Fergie was even laughing raucously as she drove in to Buckingham Palace after Andrew's disastrous interview, there to be, no one doubts, reamed up down and sideways by the Queen's closest staff.

This is the Fergie I want to see at the wedding singing Big Girls Don’t Cry as she walks down the aisle.

So what does Beatrice do for a living?

Is she on welfare?

I'm convinced that Fergie is bipolar. The wonder is the two kids didn't come out with Andrew's stuffy meanness or their mother's mental illness.

Love Fergie. Hate Markle. But at the moment, we need to rush to the other thread and Peter Phillips's side. He's devastated. Autumn is leaving. What a bitch!

r219 misogynist much?

[quote][R219] misogynist much?

Behold the mind of Celebitchy - unable to grasp humor, irony or sarcasm in any form.

R221 = behold the freak that thinks everyone reads/is a poster from Celebitchy

[quote]freak that thinks [bold]everyone reads/is a poster from Celebitchy[/bold]

In all fairness R222, we only think the mentally defective or delusional posters are CB denizens, not that "everyone reads/is a poster from Celebitchy." as you purport. However, thanks to the "input" and provision of further evidence of your intellectual frailties, you have certainly outed yourself as one. Well done, Sherlock!

R223 tl;dr. I'm sure it was witty though!

Don't you have some Meghan-bashing to do? How has she offended the Queen today?

Wow, FOUR lines are considered "tl;dr" in your universe, honey? RIF, right? Reader's Digest must be a horrible and tedious trudge for you. Even the word "abridged" must be too much of an endeavor for you to understand since, well, the obvious.

As you seem to have issues with basic "Schoolhouse Rock," in a salute to grammar, I will let you in on a little secret among the educated classes, some of whom actually are the aristocrats you clearly do not emulate or understand: "Who" is a pronoun that refers to people, human beings. "That" is a pronoun that refers to objects, places, or things. It should be: "Behold the freak WHO that thinks everyone reads/is a poster from Celebitchy," not "Behold the freak THAT..."

Now you may go back to where you came from and dispense good grammar for the masses you preach to.

You are very welcome because, if anything, we DLers would like nothing but to impart good graces and grammar upon a world without manners, wit, or a good grasp of the English language.

Still YAWN, tl;dr. You really are a blowhard, dear r225.

Here's a topic, if you need help: Meghan: Literal Satan, or merely Eve returned from hell? Discuss!

Hate of proper grammar and clear expression? Wow. A Meghan fan just admitted to being a slack-jawed yokel.

r227

I put R222 on my ignore list and did a search for "Klan" on said list. There were 10 mentions across her copious posts. She must be "Klan" obsessive or something like that. How does a Celebitchy poster who lives in bum-fucked Ohio/Kentucky, or wherever, become so enthralled with "Meghan Markle," race aside, that the consummate grifter became such a hero to Ohio small-time "girl."

R229, I have the same obsessive poster on my ignored list, too. May I politely point out that I actually am from Ohio (a gay man) and I have no investment with the controversial American Duchess.

R229 you are mistaken, as r222 is not the "Klan" queen. You probably missed the header when you were scrolling.

And they have succeeded in derailing this thread.

Probably OT here, but since it has been brought up, Autumn and Peter separated amicably last year. Contrary to the earliest reports, she is not going to try to take the kids to Canada but will remain in Gloucestershire so she and Peter can share joint custody. The family has been aware of the situation.

Autumn is popular in the RF, esp. with HM: smart, friendly, has a successful independent career, is not a drama whore and is willing to play the game. Someone should have taken lessons from her. The separation was probably not announced earlier because the RF already had enough drama going on.

^ And yes, Autumn and Peter are planning to divorce.

What was funny was that when she was barely pregs she wore that maternity coat, buttoned up, to get people talking at the wedding and told family members at the reception. After she got noticeable she never wore a buttoned up maternity coat again! She wore regular coats that wouldn't button around her tummy so she could show off the bump.