So, does the Queen really ‘punish’ royal ladies by refusing their jewelry requests?

Fiftieth anniversary of the Investiture of the Prince of Wales

I did not expect yesterday’s royal story to blow up the way it did. I mean, the story pissed me off, but it was yet another dog-whistle-racist/microaggression-filled nasty hit job on the Duchess of Sussex. The Sun claimed that the Queen was “not impressed with some of Meghan’s demands,” and as a way of punishing Meghan, the Queen reportedly assured Prince William that HIS wife would be the only one who get to borrow pieces from the Royal Collection at this time, until further notice. This was partially framed as “Kate is the future queen, so only she should get to wear the jewelry previously worn by Diana.” Which skips Camilla, I guess, the current Princess of Wales (though Camilla doesn’t use that title, she is in fact the PoW).

As I mentioned in yesterday’s post, there was a lot of conflation between Royal Collection jewelry and pieces of jewelry which were part of Diana’s private collection, which William and Harry already inherited and divided up. All of “Diana’s jewelry” worn by Meghan thus far has been from Diana’s private collection, not the Royal Collection. The only piece from the Royal Collection which Meghan has ever gotten to wear was the tiara on her wedding day. And the papers are still turning that whole thing into a year-long melodrama about Meghan “demanding” a different tiara.

Anyway, following the Sun’s exclusive, various outlets have tried to “clapback” on the story… to weird results. People Magazine’s take boiled down to “sure, Meghan hasn’t worn anything from the Royal Collection since her wedding, but she probably will at some point, maybe.” Their argument was that Meghan hasn’t attended any state banquets yet. But she was on a state visit to Fiji and she asked if she should wear a tiara, and Charles told her no. So… I don’t get the point of People’s story. Then Vanity Fair took up the mantle of correcting the record about the Royal Collection jewelry and… I’m not sure they made it any better:

The Duchess of Sussex will continue wearing jewels from the Royal Collection, despite a report that the Queen has banned her granddaughter-in-law from wearing some of her most prized gems. The Sun claimed Wednesday that the Queen has banned Meghan Markle from wearing some items from the Royal Collection, particularly the pieces that belonged to the late Princess of Wales. However senior royal sources have told Vanity Fair that she will be allowed to wear jewels from the collection.

“The Duchess has worn pieces from the Royal Collection before so why would that stop now?” said one source, adding that Meghan wore the Queen Mary diamond bandeau from the collection on her wedding day.

The Duchess has also worn several pieces of Princess Diana’s jewelry, including a pair of butterfly earrings and a gold bracelet. Two diamonds once owned by the late princess also form part of Meghan’s engagement ring.

The Sun report also claims that Princess Diana’s heirlooms have caused tensions between Prince Harry and Prince William, so the Queen has intervened to keep Meghan away from the jewels because, as the future Princess of Wales, Kate Middleton is more senior than the Meghan in the royal hierarchy. According to members of the Queen’s entourage, there is a pecking order when it comes to the royal jewels which are under the charge of the Queen’s dresser Angela Kelly. “Angela hands the jewels out, but ultimately they are in the gift of the Queen,” a courtier explained.

But family friend has dismissed the suggestion that the Queen has banned Meghan. “I find it very unlikely,” the source said. “It’s not the kind of thing the Queen would do. She is very generous when it comes to lending jewels to her family.” As reported in January, the Queen has already opened up the Royal Collection to Meghan and Harry allowing them to choose several pieces of artwork for their new home.

[From Vanity Fair]

“The Duchess has also worn several pieces of Princess Diana’s jewelry, including a pair of butterfly earrings and a gold bracelet.” Those were pieces from Diana’s private jewelry collection, not the Royal Collection. “It’s not the kind of thing the Queen would do. She is very generous when it comes to lending jewels to her family.” Except not really? Meghan hasn’t been able to borrow anything since her wedding. Even Kate – The Future Queen, don’t you know – only gets to borrow sh-t from the Royal Collection about twice a year on average. The Queen has the grandest jewelry collection in the world but she’s very stingy about lending it out historically. And yes, despite the vague protests from VF’s sources, I totally believe the Queen (and/or her courtiers) would “punish” a duchess by refusing to lend out jewelry. Especially when it’s a special request from Prince William.

Britain's Queen Elizabeth and Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, visit the Storyhouse in Chester


Photos courtesy of Avalon Red and WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

148 Responses to “So, does the Queen really ‘punish’ royal ladies by refusing their jewelry requests?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Ctgirl says:

    I don’t buy that the Queen has the time to worry about who borrows her jewelry. There is a hierarchy that has been in place for generations that has nothing to do with racism.

    • Lunde says:

      I agree – I think this is more an issue of not understanding Royal traditions and the hierarchy of who gets to choose first and in what order. It’s like with clothing that the Queen always gets the first colour choice, then Camilla, then Kate etc

      Also it isn’t like the celebrity system of asking stores to borrow clothes/jewels – I am pretty sure that you don’t “request” but that you wait for the Queen to offer when she thinks that it is appropriate to the event. Perhaps not all of Meghan’s team understand this.

      • Roux says:

        Yes, exactly this. I suspect some of these Meghan being ‘greedy’ stories have come from this too. I think you get offered pieces to wear and you don’t request them because that would look rude. I think this might seem odd to Americans and be a bit of a cultural difference and perhaps this is something Meghan has become unstuck on. I mentioned this in the comments yesterday and got shot down by people asking why Harry wouldn’t say anything to Meghan but would he even think to? Would Meghan really even ask Harry first? I think Meghan has probably requested items and it’s just come across wrong.

    • Ader says:

      Le Sigh. Yes, there is a hierarchy…but the WAY the story was presented, by the media, was riddled with dog-whistles, which is racism.

      Also: Denying racism is a form of racism.

      • Ctgirl says:

        Denying that racism is a motivating factor in a situation where no racism exists isn’t racist. It’s common sense.

      • Ader says:

        Wrong. And there is racism at play. You just don’t want to acknowledge it, for whatever reason. But, know that you are part of the problem by not understanding the issue better. But, this is where I end engagement with you. Life’s too damn short to waste it on people who don’t want to learn. And if you’re still spewing this kind of stuff, you clearly don’t want to learn.

      • ORLY says:

        So if something isn’t racist and is called racist, it actually is because denying racism is racist? What???
        And we can learn from that?

      • Ader says:

        You’re being purposefully obtuse, ORLY. If you cannot see that the media is using dog whistles, then I don’t know what to tell you. You’re probably a lot more problematic than you realize if you can’t recognize what’s going on.

        As for denial being a form of racism: — there’s a start. If you really don’t want to uphold the racist status quo, you’ll read and do some digging yourself for more answers. But, I doubt you will. People like you and CTgirl are part of the problem and will likely never change.

  2. Erinn says:

    I don’t know. My own grandmother will threaten us out of the will if she thinks we’re getting a tattoo or something. And I just laugh and tell her I don’t love her for her money. And then she sees the tattoo and is like “oh, not bad I guess” because none of us are tacky. And it’s always an empty threat, and that’s just the process at this point.

    So I guess part of me is kind of like …. well it’s possible the queen is threatening it. But I also doubt that Meghan is the only one being ‘punished’ like that if that is the case. I think she’d be pretty much the same across the board when it came to jewelry bans.

    And at the same time… how many of the events really call for super blinged out jewels. I assume it would be an evening affair if the big jewels are going to be brought out.

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      The big bling is only brought out for state occasions i.e. state visits, diplomatic receptions etc.., events that total several at most a year.

      • Erinn says:

        That makes sense. I’d suppose those events WOULD be pretty formal, so it makes sense to haul out the big guns jewelry wise.

        I think maybe the story is true… but like I said – I don’t know that the queen wouldn’t threaten it towards anyone/everyone rather than JUST Meghan if that’s the case. If it’s just Meghan, well then that’s stupid.

      • Tourmaline says:

        Well, there is some big bling that comes out for other things. Just a month or two ago, Kate wore gigantic diamond earrings with pearl drops to the BAFTAs. These earrings once belonged to Diana. But then I am confused because I think those particular earrings would not have been the “Royal jewel collection” controlled by the Queen/Angela Kelly, but in the category of Diana’s private jewelry collection.

      • Lady2Lazy says:

        The Town & Country article featured Kate and at the bottom they featured Meghan. Apparently, the Windsor Knot tiara was given to Kate by the Queen when she and William wed. Furthermore, Kate has been given a greater deal of royal jewels that Meghan, granted I know that she has been a part of The Firm longer. But I have to question why Kate was gifted a tiara, the one that was Diana’s favorite but not Meghan? So basically this is inaccurate. The Queen has given Kate jewels that belonged in the royal chest, not to Meghan though.

    • Becks1 says:

      Kate tends to go “bling-y” for things like Trooping the Colour. She has one or two pairs of significant long diamond earrings that we have seen her wear for (formal) daytime events that I “think” are presumed to be from the royal collection (of course I am trying to find them now and can’t.) but besides the Fiji earrings, we have not seen Meghan wear big earrings like those for any type of event, so that’s why I assume big bling just isn’t her style, at this point?

      but a big diamond necklace or something would only be for a formal evening event (my guess anyway).

      • Erinn says:

        I agree, Becks … I really don’t think Meghan is a big chunky jewelry kind of girl. And I get that – the majority of mine is pretty minimal because that’s what I like best on me. Now … if I had unfettered access to big jewels, I’d probably be pretty pleased to wear something more ostentatious. But if I’m picking out something for myself, I usually like more unique, but kind of understated jewelry.

        I recently had a ring designed… I was able to select the exact Montana sapphire I wanted, and the exact cut. I didn’t go with one of the common jewelry store cuts – I had someone precision cut it into ‘ruination’ pattern. It kind of leaves a Zelda tri-force pattern if it hits the light properly and I’m a bit of a nerd, so I loved that. I had someone custom design the ring/basket for me too – and went with a octagon kind of shape with little octagon cutouts on the basket in yellow gold to bring out the color of the sapphire. I love it. And it’s only about a half carat – but it’s one of those pieces that you don’t notice how different it is until you really take a look. And it’s all ethically sourced stuff, so that was a bonus. And I think Meghan leans more into that kind of thing – something interesting and not clunky, and ethically sourced seems to be important to her as well.

  3. Becks1 says:

    Yeah I think yesterday there was confusion over reaction to the underlying story itself (does the Queen limit her jewelry loans based on, among other things, rank, or doesn’t she? the answer to that is probably yes, she does limit her loans based on rank) and reaction to the fact that the story was written with such a tone of “Meghan is a demanding American diva who wants to wear all of Britain’s finest diamonds and the queen has had to say no because of her ‘behavior.’” IMO the Queen is surprisingly stingy with jewelry loans, but she’s in charge of the royal collection right now so that is her prerogative.

    But I think these denials just kind of highlight that Meghan has NOT worn anything from the royal collection since her wedding. And she has done some major events – the south pacific tour, meeting with the king of morocco, etc. Not tiara events, but events where significant bling may have been warranted. But, she seems to be doing well with the jewelry she has and she always looks nice from a jewelry perspective, so maybe she doesn’t want to?

    Finally, there was a theory floated yesterday that Angela Kelly was the source of many of these leaks, and this VF story kind of confirms that in my opinion.

    • Myriam says:

      Who’s Angela Kelly and how does this VF article confirm she’s the leak?

      • Becks1 says:

        She’s the queen’s “dresser” – she’s in charge of her wardrobe, etc. Some speculated yesterday that she was the one leaking all these tiara/jewelry stories because she is someone who would absolutely know what was going on re: the tiaras, she would probably have been in the room when Meghan and Eugenie made their choices, etc. This article has some quote about how “Angela Kelly brings them up, but the queen has the final decision” (something like that.) So maybe “confirm” is a strong word, but considering the convos yesterday, I saw that and thought “huh. Maybe some of those CBers were pretty close.”

    • Ainsley7 says:

      The trouble with the source being Angela Kelly is that it would mean there is a lot of truth to what is being said and the Queen is allowing the leaking. The Queen would only do that if Meghan was refusing to correct whatever behavior she disapproved of. For example, if Meghan was demanding jewelry (weird as that would be) then the Queen would have someone let her know that she wasn’t happy about it. If she didn’t stop then the Queen would allow leaks to the press. It escalates until the behavior is corrected. It’s how she keeps all of them under control. I have trouble believing that Meghan wouldn’t have corrected whatever the problem was by now.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Ainsley that is a good point too. I cant make up my mind where I stand on this lol. For Angela to be the one “leaking” it would probably be with the Queen’s knowledge or tacit approval. Which, maybe it is, maybe Meghan has really ticked off the Queen.

        it’s all just so messy.

      • Silas Marner says:

        At the time of the wedding, the Queen was watching Guy the beagle. Meghan and the Queen had a friendly engagement shortly after.

        If the Queen is displeased with Meghan, this didn’t happen until after the tour last fall.

        Anne also likes Meghan and I cannot see her liking someone who behaves badly behind the scenes.

        I think in the case of Angela Kelly, bias, racial and otherwise, unfortunately may play a role. There has been a lot of concern trolling about Meghan’s suitability. And in the family, there were a few stories about William raising concern even with the Queen. We have the clearly untrue story about Tom Inskip being banned because he supposedly told Harry to not marry Meghan even though stories at the time place him at the second reception.

        Sometimes the support staff can be snobbier than the actual royals because they derive their own status from the people they serve.

        Meghan is the victim of a prolonged smear campaign but it began after the successful tour which lines up with Andrew possibly being upset and the Epstein story, and William’s possible affair.

        This is why I think the gossiper behind the scenes is Angela Kelly but the leaker is Andrew, William or both

      • Tourmaline says:

        @Silas agree that it is plausible that Angela Kelly is loose-lipped and gossiping behind the scenes but it might be someone else who is taking that tea to the press.
        I don’t necessarily buy the “Prince Andrew” theory of tiara scuttlebutt leaking, however, it is true that the York family might have been intimately acquainted with any kerfluffle about wedding tiaras–what tiara Meghan wanted, what tiara Eugenie wanted, what happened if there was a conflict and Meghan wanted a tiara that was promised to Eugenie. Keep in mind Fergie definitely would have been in the know about any drama relating to the wedding tiaras.

      • Skeptical says:

        The entire premise that the queen is sitting around inventing a jewelry schedule for items rarely worn and that her dresser feels compelled to leak this to the press to prove something about everyone’s “status” sounds ridiculous.

      • Lexa says:

        I’m trying to remember which article this came from around Tiaragate, but one of them specifically said that Kate was smart to quickly develop a friendship (or a friendly rapport) with Angela, because it meant more/easier access to borrowing jewels. I assume the Queen ultimately OKs the borrowing, especially with sentimental pieces like her wedding bracelet or her mother’s favorite pieces.

        I’ve always believed that Angela was the one that told the Queen about any perceived attitude Meghan and Harry had around the wedding tiara, which led to the Queen having the reported talk with him. (I also think she could have been the source on Kate crying at Charlotte’s fitting, if that story has any ounce of truth.) On the other hand, I do think that there’s a hierarchy to the borrowing and Camilla and Kate get first pick and get to borrow pieces not available to the other women in the family.

  4. Digital Unicorn says:

    Given the current political climate there are several pieces that won’t see the light of day as they have Russian connections – the BRF own many pieces of jewellery (on top of Faberge Eggs) that once belonged to the Russian RF (who they were closely related to). IIRC Queen Mary bought a lot. Plus there are also many others that are related to the Empire and when they have been worn in the past have caused an issue due to the nature of how they (the RF) came into possession of said bling.

    The ones we see on a regular basis are the least controversial ones. Plus I just don’t buy TQ is that petty, her mother was a petty b!tch on the other hand.

    • Muffy says:

      One of the perks of being Queen is getting to be petty. The Queen Mother’s life took a few unexpected turns, so I can see where being petty to David and Wallis became a lifelong passion of hers.

    • Millenial says:

      If Queen Mary bought the Russian royal jewelry that is super macabre considering it’s partially her husbands fault they all got executed since he wouldn’t let them escape to Britain.

      • lanne says:

        She bought it all and didn’t pay the fair price. Dowager Empress Marie Federovna (Nicholas II’s mother) managed to smuggle her jewelry out of Russia when she fled the Revolution. She refused to sell it over the last 10 years of her life, when she lived mostly in Denmark in the home she had bought with her sister (Queen Alexandra, wife of Edward VII). The day after she died, the jewels were in a diplomatic bag on the way to London so that Mary could get her hands on them (Marie’s daughter Xenia was living in a grace and favor house–Frogmore cottage! and couldn’t refuse). Queen Mary bought the Russian jewels dirt cheap, stiffing both of Nicholas’s surviving sisters Xenia and Olga out of their mother’s heritage. Olga got nothing from the sale of her mother’s jewels. When Queen Elizabeth went to Russia in 1998, she did NOT wear any Russian provenance jewels b/c of the way they were acquired. Queen Mary was such a magpie that people dreaded her visits, and they would hide all their good stuff. If Mary saw something she liked, she would expect it to be given to her as a gift, and she would take it then and there. And she was born a minor German princess with no money. So much for aristocrats having class.

    • ArtHistorian says:

      The Queen routinely wears the Vladimir Tiara, which originally belonged to a Romanov Grand Duchess and was smuggled out of Russia to Britain where it ended up in the Royal Collection. Sounds like she doesn’t have any qualms about wearing the Russian pieces.

      • Tina says:

        The Queen hasn’t worn the Grand Duchess Vladimir tiara since 2015, and UK-Russia relations worsened significantly following the Skripal poisoning in March 2018.

      • lanne says:

        That tiara wasn’t acquired as egregiously as the Russian Dowager Empress jewels. Grand Duchess Vladimir’s reprobate son Boris sold his mothers jewels when he fled Russia–he was her “darling” and got the best of her jewels–the emeralds, incl. the tiara Queen Elizabeth wears (there’s NO WAY Meghan would have wanted to wear that, which is why I call bullshit on the emerald tiara story. It’s the only tiara that has Russian emeralds. It’s a Grande Dame old lady tiara, completely outside the realm of Meghan’s exhibited tastes.) Interestingly, Grand Duchess Vladimir (they were the worst of the Romanovs–reactionary big spenders who epitomized and reveled in the vast gulf between the elites and the masses) wanted Boris to marry the oldest of Nicholas’s 4 daughters, Olga–when she was 17 and he was 38. Nicholas and Alexandra were horrified and refused, earning even more hatred from the Grand Duchess. (Yes, I’m a Russian history buff)

  5. ByTheSea says:

    The royalty, like the vatican, seems to have outlived its usefulness (if it ever had any). No one group of people should have so much wealth and so little purpose. Imagine the people they could feed and house with that fortune.

    • jan90067 says:

      Have you seen Vatican City? Insane…the gold, the paintings…THE REAL ESTATE ALONE IN ROME! lol

      It’s insane to me that they have churches passing the plate weekly, and begging money from “plebs” to “feed the poor, house the homeless”. And yet, THEY live like kings in palaces. They really don’t give a sh!t about the world’s poor and hungry. It’s all about some of them having the accumulated power and wealth.

      • Skeptical says:

        So, what do you think should happen to Vatican artwork? Should it be sold off by Southeby’s to private billionaire collectors as portfolio diversification?

      • jan90067 says:

        @Skeptical, yes… the Church professes to want to “help” the poor Catholics all over the world out of hunger and poverty. Yes, they should sell it off as needed to eradicate the poverty for their ardent followers. Isn’t that the purpose of them? Or is it to amass fortunes and palatial lives for their cardinals and bishops? I don’t see ANY of those taking vows of poverty.

      • Princessk says:

        When we visited the Vatican years ago my husband was totally stunned by all the gold and jewels, which seemed totally at odds with what they preach, even though the Pope and his entourage live very well fed splendid lives.

    • Ali says:

      So much wealth and so little purpose. It is odd.

      • minx says:

        Why do people still tolerate it?

      • Tina says:

        People like it. People are inherently conservative, not in a political sense necessarily, but in the sense of not wanting things to change. It takes a LOT to make people want to change their mode of government. The UK is the 5th/6th richest country in the world. People are pretty comfortable here. (It’s a problem, because they don’t understand how much we are shooting ourselves in the head with Brexit).

  6. Alexandria says:

    Is a state visit equal to a state banquets? It doesn’t sound right but I could be wrong. I’m sure there’s a pecking order for the royal collection and this is much ado about nothing.

    But if the bros are really arguing about jewellery, that’s so LOTR.

  7. Tw says:

    Once again, it’s William who comes across as petty and jealous.

    • Leslie says:

      It’s interesting that the queen would tell William Meghan couldn’t have any jewels. If Meghan wanted any, wouldn’t the queen tell Harry no? I think this outs William or someone close to him as the source for this story unless he confirmed with the queen that Meghan wouldn’t get anything Diana wore. Why would he even ask? I don’t get it.

      • Anance says:

        I agree. The Sun article had quotes that appeared to have been written rather than spoken. The quotes have a business-like feel to them. The article made sure to mention that William has been told of HM’s decision, in fact, it says so twice.

        * “The Queen made Prince William personally aware of her decision to ban Meghan from wearing jewellery from the Royal Collection

        * “As part of that situation, the Queen informed Prince William that the items from the Royal Collection worn by Princess Diana would not immediately be made available to Meghan.”

        Kate wore the emerald choker and matching earrings (redesigned for her) to last year’s BAFTA.

        I think what may have happened — there is jewelry, not very extensive, set aside for the Princess of Wales. This is why we see Camilla wearing jewels Diana previously wore. William (or Kate) is trying to limit access to the jewelry to Kate, as next POW. It is not something that Kate and Meghan can trade back and forth. Neither did Diana and Fergie.

        This is made public to

        1) Reassure William that neither HM nor Charles change their minds.
        2) Humiliate Meghan. It sounds like she is being punished.

        I’m sorry, the palace courtiers like Angela Kelly are probably conservative and not used to a POC in the BRF. They made this public in a humiliating way to get in on Meghan trashing.

        I am beginning think William and Kate are not the nicest people. This should have been handled privately.

      • Tourmaline says:

        @Anance. Are the emeralds Kate wore to the BAFTAs the so called Cambridge emeralds? (The ones Diana wore as a headband once?)

      • Anance says:

        @Tourmaline I believe so. The earrings were the same – Diana was photographed in them. Then the necklace consisted of Diana’s choker (lengthened) with one of the New York earrings as a pendant. That’s why I said the emeralds were redesigned.

  8. Elizabeth says:

    Neither people nor vanity fair debunked it. The royal collection is always dolled out at the discretion of the reigning monarch, Lizzy decides who gets what and she is a stickler for hierarchy and precedence. Meghans wedding tiara will likely be the tiara that she wears for state banquets and other such white tie events. She is not the future consort and thus is treated accordingly, when Charles is king and he decides how the jewellery is dolled out then she may gain access to more options but until such time it is what it is. She has access to Harry’s portion of Diana’s jewellery that he inherited when she died and that is the jewellery that she has been wearing other than her wedding tiara she has worn no other pieces from the royal collection that is a fact. The monarchy only survives so long as tradition is maintained and certain air of mystery lingers they are not democratically elected, I can’t stand Therese May but at least at the next election I get to vote her out. I don’t get to choose my monarch I don’t want virtue signalling right on idiots I want them to shut up and get on with it for the position they inherit they get unimaginable privilege. Behave accordingly and do it in private. Otherwise viva Le revolution.

    • Peggy says:

      Well said.

    • Royalwatcher says:

      Well Sophie has worn 2 tiaras in addition to her wedding tiara so I’d imagine Meghan would get acces to at least that many since she’s higher ranked than Sophie.

      • Becks1 says:

        Poor Sophie and her wedding tiara, lol. (sorry, but that’s my least favorite one that we have seen recently in the BRF, ha.)

      • Elizabeth says:

        It took Sophie 6 years to be seen in a tiara other than her wedding tiara, there is also some confusion as to whether the tiaras she where’s are actually from the royal collection or from the queens private collection as they are two different entities and a distinction must be made. The royal collection passes from monarch to monarch and is essentially held in trust for the nation divvied out at the whim of the sovereign. Her private collection are the pieces that belong solely to her and it is at her bequest who gets what in the event of her death. The reason most things are left to the incoming sovereign is because sovereign to sovereign means no inheritance taxes to be paid.

      • Scal says:

        And one of those tiaras (the wessex aquamarine) is a modern one that was purchased for her own private collection.

        So she’s worn 2 that she rotates from the royal collection and 1 from her personal one. And the queen really likes Sophie. Kate’s also rotates 3 her wedding tiara, the lovers knot, and the lotus. So once Megan starts going to more tiara events I’m sure she’ll have 2-3 available to rotate through.

      • Carolind says:

        Meghan and Sophie are ultimately ranked the same. They are both the wives of younger brothers.

    • LivePlantsCleanAir says:

      weren’t the earrings worn in Fiji with the long, blue, caped dress from the Royal Collection?

    • Lu says:

      +1 this is exactly how I feel. As a Brit, I am not interested in what any of them think about anything. Just do the job as it is, and it has been agreed by the British people for decades that the job is symbolic and ceremonial only. Charles is unpopular because he is too opinionated and as someone who obviously studied the royal family, Meghan ought to know this already.
      We don’t want their opinions. Just cut the ribbons, shake the hands and enjoy the unfathomable privilege you are afforded in exchange.

  9. Kylie says:

    I don’t think the trip to Fiji was considered a state visit. The dinner was black tie and typically the BRF only wears tiaras at white tie events,

  10. KHLBHL says:

    This might be off topic but is anyone else picturing the Royal Collection sitting around in Buckingham Palace with all the stuff haphazardly arranged like in the Room of Requirement or something? No but really – where do they keep their vast collection of jewels/art/furniture? At the bank? At a rental storage unit? Inside Buckingham Palace? I really hate the idea that a lot of these pieces are sitting around worth tons of $$$ without the majority of the pieces ever being used by the BRF. I’d rather they sell them off or donate them or something so the art can be enjoyed by the public. Plus, as people have mentioned, a lot of this “Royal Collection” was obtained in really questionable ways.

    • Erinn says:

      That might be what I was visualizing. I went between the room of requirement and a gringotts vault.

      • KHLBHL says:

        Yes like Harry’s vault! (Or probably more like the Malfoy family vault)
        Just piles of money and jewels sitting around gathering dust lol

    • Lady D says:

      When I was young, I used to think the Tower of London was full to the top with the Queen’s jewels.

    • Mia says:

      has there ever been a coffee table book about the history of the Queen’s jewel?

      • lanne says:

        yep. Can’t remember the title. There’s a good documentary as well.

      • Feeshalori says:

        I believe The Queen’s Jewels by Leslie Field is supposed to be the quintessential book on HM’s jewel collection. I think l read that Field was actually allowed to view it. The book is available on Amazon.

    • Mia says:

      I bet the Queen’s corgis get to wear all her jewelry.

    • Princessk says:

      Pieces from the Royal Collection are periodically put on public display. They are also brought out on special occasions for viewing, such as when a visiting Head of State comes over, and the items displayed will usually have some relevance.

  11. Seraphina says:

    Ohhhhh to be able to spend a day looking at the collection. Now THAT would be a great fundraiser.

    All kidding aside, being a history major (and a lover of all things sparkly) it really ticks me off to think they have some of the worlds most precious historical pieces jewelry wise and it is hidden because of what ever reason. And yes, viva la revolution. So much wealth, ill gotten at that, in the hands of one family and most of it to in the hands of the first born. It’s 2020 (almost).

    • Becks1 says:

      I agree. when I think about it logically – the fact that the royal collection is so vast, just from a jewelry perspective, and that there are some pieces that have not been seen in DECADES – its kind of sickening. And sure, there may be valid reasons why the Queen isn’t going to wear something that belonged to the Romanovs, or has other Russian origins at this point in time. but…there’s still a part of me that is like…..really? you just have these pieces tucked away?

      If they brought out even 20 of the rarer pieces and put them on display, I think that would be a great fundraiser/event/whatever.

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      There was an exhibition of the royal bling in BP a few years ago and it was sparkly. The diamonds on display were enough to make P Diddy green with envy.

    • JadedBrit says:

      @Seraphina A history major who uses the phrase Viva la Revolution – really?!

  12. Ann says:

    What a bu**suit story. Rank acess to Royal jewellery; Camilla- next to line, Queen always gave her the most beautifull tiara.Sophie- Queen gave her own tiara .Sophie and Ed attends many royal events and european royal weddings . Kate attend in tiara events,also Queen borrow Kate some pieces of her weeding jewellery. Acces to Royal jewellery depend on event. It is so simply but no we have another poor Meg story- od getting borred.

    • jan90067 says:

      Wasn’t Sophie’s cobbled together with pieces from other (discarded/not worn) tiaras? Hers really was such a lame wedding tiara (poor Sophie!)

      Sarah’s on the other hand, was made for her; as the wife of the favorite son, it was a hell of a lot better! I was actually kind of surprised Eugenie didn’t wear it for her wedding out of sentimentality. Wonder if Bea called “dibs” as eldest, and it’s being held for her in the eventuality she marries this new playboy.

      • Tourmaline says:

        Sophie’s is like something tragic sold on the Party Pieces website. Sarah’s, yes better but I don’t like the spikey central element of it. Agree with the idea that Beatrice might wear it if and when she marries that shady dude.

      • jlf5254 says:

        Sophie’s tiara was several pieces put together – but they do apparently have historical significance (and potentially speak to her being the favourite daughter-in-law ). It’s just whoever put them together didn’t do the best job. I think Sophie now has access to another tiara which she (and I) tends to favour.
        This is worth a read as to the provenance of Sophie’s wedding tiara and well worth a read if you have not already:

  13. Chef Grace says:

    QE2 is like some tiny dragon guarding her stash. What? You wish to borrow that bit of shiny? NO! (Insert flames) You are not worthy!

    • jan90067 says:

      Ok… the visual of a “tiny dragon (breathing flames)” with Liz’s head (crown included!) had me laughing out loud!

  14. MaryContrary says:

    So somehow the Queen has gone from so happy with how Meghan “performed” in Morocco to now she’s not letting her access the jewelry?

  15. Ellie says:

    I wonder if most of the royal jewelry is seen as too extravagant to wear in public when so many people are worried about their finances. It was one thing in the 1980s but today… Even necklaces Kate wore six years ago would strike me as too much today though I loved them at the time.

    • Bumble says:

      I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. QEII very aware of economic divide in the world and likely doesn’t want to give off a ‘let them eat cake’ vine.

  16. Snap Happy says:

    Someone mentioned Angela Kelly might be the leak with the jewel stories. Maybe she is the one Harry said the, “What megahn wants…” line too?

  17. ShazBot says:

    I do think it is a bit strange that she hasn’t worn anything from the royal collection on her south pacific tour or to morocco. Kate usually gets a brooch or something relating to the country visited, which makes sense.
    So maybe there is some truth to this, though I would bet it’s more the Queen/Charles managing a Will temper tantrum than anything to do directly with Meghan.

    • Silas Marner says:

      That is what I think as well.

      Kate will not make her mark through her voice or her engagements for some years to come but these little visual gestures have been a consistent way of showing favor from the Queen.

      William is careless about doing the work but I can see him being very zealous about guarding his status. His whole identity is about being an heir and his committments elsewhere have always been inconsistent.

  18. Just Sayin says:

    Why does this jewelry thing surprise anyone? This is how the hierarchy works. As much as we all love Meghan, Harry ranks lower than William, therefore Meghan does.
    Maybe Meghan does not get this yet. Maybe she IS throwing fits. Just because she is a WOC doesn’t mean everyone else is a racist for calling out bad behavior. Harry is basically an Andrew and Meghan needs to accept that!

    B*tches come in all shades!

    • Ellie says:

      Just Sayin, it isn’t about the jewelry or the calling out bad behavior. The problem is the litany of blatant ethnic slurs in the comments sections on the Instagram accounts and the thinly veiled ethnic slurs in the newspaper headlines. The royal family shouldn’t excuse racism just because Meghan ranks below Kate. If the Queen would make a statement against the ethnic slurs then I wouldn’t care at all if Meghan never wears a tiara again.

    • Mary says:

      @Just Sayin, I absolutely disagree with you about their being a hierarchy to how loans by the Queen are made, you can see my post below in which I explain my thoughts but it took years for Kate to wear any real significant loans yet, for example, Fergie (not long after her marriage and while Diana was around) was sporting at least one of Queen Victoria’s jewels to a casual event. I don’t ever recall Diana being loaned a historically important item from the Queen (by that I mean age and association with a sovereign (like Queen Victoria)). No, those that are bringing up “hierarchy” are merely trying to explain away what appears to be bad behaviour on someone else’s part and not Meghan’s.

  19. Elizabeth says:

    My guess is the next tiara event will be the diplomatic reception at the end of the year unless there’s a state visit before then. That will be Meghans first tiara event post wedding, let’s wait and see what tiara she is given to wear.

    • Kylie says:

      I don’t think Harry has ever gone to diplomatic reception and they didn’t go last year, so he and Meghan probably won’t go this year either. It is usually the Queen, Charles, Camilla, William, and Kate.

      • Elizabeth says:

        Then we mightn’t see her at a tiara event for some time. Having a child strengthens her position within the family, you never know they may attend. Wishful thinking maybe but we might get lucky.

      • Becks1 says:

        Harry has attended the diplomatic reception but only once or twice, I think. So not attending this year, for him, was not unusual.

  20. ChillyWilly says:

    I really can’t picture Meg “demanding” to wear the royal jewels. I mean she doesn’t seem dumb enough to pull that kind of crap. She is new to The Firm and is smart enough to know how to act right. My opinion is Kate wants to make sure she always gets first dibs so she made Bill talk to Granny about sending a memo or something laying out the RULES for Meghan.

    • Mego says:

      This. I cannot imagine her doing this. It’s nuts.

    • Jan90067 says:

      I can’t picture EITHER ONE OF THEM doing this.

      First, Kate’s be around long enough to know the “Hierarchy of the Jewels” (I hear that in my head in a booming voice lol). Second, while Harry isn’t the brightest bulb in the ceiling, even HE knows this, too. He KNOWS Meg will never wear The Girls of Great Britain or the Grenville tiaras; certain pieces are for certain positions of rank).

      Also, he and William divvied up Diana’s private collection, or decided that their wives might share certain pieces (though I’d bet that would be for private time’s, not a public pic, otherwise that piece becomes associated with that woman (ie: Diana’s bee earrings that Meg wore), but who knows?

      But we don’t know much of any of this, that’s the point.

    • Tourmaline says:

      Besides the Cambridge Lovers Knot tiara, what other jewels in the Royal vault/collection (and not personal property of Diana that was inherited) would be closely associated with Diana? She wore the Spencer tiara to her wedding and other occasions but that belongs to Earl Spencer and crew. Some of Diana’s nieces have worn it at their weddings.

      I’m just musing what scenario could it be where Will and Harry might have bad blood over their wives accessing something closely associated to Diana’s memory from the Royal vault? I thought of Kate at this years BAFTAs wearing big diamond earrings that Diana had worn, but those seem to have been Diana’s personally.

      Also I wonder have Diana’s jewels that she owned been fully split up between Will and Harry years ago? Would they be kept for safekeeping by BP?

      • Tourmaline says:

        Just adding the Cambridge emerald choker is the only example I can find

      • Feeshalori says:

        I’m wondering who’s got their hands on Diana’s glorious sapphire and pearl choker. Now that’s an iconic piece forever immortalized when she wore it dancing with John Travolta at the White House. That sapphire was originally a brooch given to Diana by the QM as a wedding gift and Diana had it converted into a necklace. So that was a personal piece Diana owned.

      • Becks1 says:

        I’m willing to be Harry has that sapphire choker, or else I feel sure we would have seen Kate wear it by this point.

      • Mary says:

        Diana wore both the King Faisal and Khalid necklaces (both gorgeous by the way!). Sophie has worn the King Faisal necklace. She also wore some diamond pendant earrings with pear-shaped pendants. Diana actually did not borrow that much jewellery from the Queen. It is only with Kate that more numerous and significant loans have been (asked for?) made.

  21. Totoro says:

    If I were a high end jewelry house, I’d be offering up the most magnificent pieces to MM for her next event. Let the rest of the stuffy Royals fight over their pecking order of the family baubles.

    • Mary says:

      Yes!!! I hope this happens! While some people are saying that the royal women cannot borrow jewellery that is absolutely false. There are absolutely instances in which Diana borrowed jewels from a jewellery house. I would love to see Meghan be able to bypass “the stuffy Royals” in this regard.

  22. Sassy says:

    Meghan and/or Harry should buy Meghan her own tiara and jewelry. The old bat can hold her jewelry over everyone else’s heads and not theirs.

    • Algernon says:

      The royal family purchased tiaras for Sarah Ferguson and Countess Sophie, but I guess they stopped doing that, maybe because it seems wasteful in our more money-conscious times. Meghan does have access to the jewelry Harry got from Diana, and she has some money of her own and can buy some nice pieces for herself. I don’t think the royal collection is quite the stick some people think it is. This is just another story blown out of proportion to punish Meghan for duchessing while black.

      • Mary says:

        Algernon, it is just problematic if the Royals have stopped buying tiaras for married-ins with Meghan. It just looks bad. It is not unusual that a tiara was not purchased for Kate. Previously, married-ins not marrying someone in the direct line (like a second or third son) were gifted jewels while it appears to be more recently assumed that a woman marrying someone in the direct line does not need a tiara as they will eventually have access to the whole lot (however, in the past, they received their own tiaras as well). So (someone correct me if I am wrong) it appears that this is the first time that a ducal house has been formed for a subordinate son of a monarch or soon-to-be monarch and they have no significant jewels, either inherited or gifted (of course this is assuming that Sophie’s wedding tiara was gifted to her). And, I am sorry but I think those pearl and diamond earrings that the Queen gifted Meghan are not “significant.” Indeed, I am sorry but compared to other jewellery that other royals have they seem pretty cheap.

    • Mego says:

      Ageist expressions like “old bat” are deeply offensive. Mant of us may reach a great old age and not appreciate being spoken of in this manner.

  23. Algernon says:

    The way this story was presented is awful and full of dog whistles, but I don’t think it’s too strange Meghan hasn’t worn anything from the royal collection. I think over time she will be given access to a few “signature pieces” to wear to white tie/state events and that will be it. That is how Countess Sophie carries on, and I think they will align Meghan’s overall presentation with Countess Sophie, since she has been the most successful wife of TQ’s children. The queen reportedly *loves* Sophie, and yet that does not change that Sophie has limited access to the royal collection. For years, she only had a couple small tiaras to wear, recently she has added a couple more though it seems she has stopped wearing one of the bandeau styles so maybe she only has access to “three at a time” or some ludicrous old rule. She has a stash of necklaces and brooches, a few pairs of earrings, and that is it. If you look through photos of Countess Sophie, who regularly reps the BRF at royal weddings and events around the world, you will see the same handful of pieces recycled over and over. Many of the pieces are convertible, even, so she can pull brooches and necklaces from tiaras, etc. It’s very economical.

    I assume over the next few years we will see Meghan build a stash similar to Sophie’s. She will have a couple small tiaras, and a few necklaces, earrings, and brooches to rotate. I doubt Meghan ever wears grand-scale jewels like the major tiaras or grand-scale necklaces. None of the non-heir wives wear the big pieces, and it won’t be weird if Meghan receives the smaller, “second tier” jewels to use. It’s just really crappy how this story got out and was framed.

    • Tourmaline says:

      I like this point that access to all the vault does not equate to love, because by all indications Sophie is very well loved by the Queen and is a special favorite family member of hers.

  24. Lolo says:

    If Camilla were ever to roll up to an event wearing something Diana had worn, people would absolutely lose their minds (not in a good way). She was so unpopular around the time of their wedding Charles had to promise she would never be queen in order to get the public to (grudgingly) accept her. Since then they’ve done an enormous amount of work rehabbing both of their images because he was absolutely lying about the queen thing and there’s no way they would jeopardize that and deliberately remind people of the love triangle of doom just so that she could wear a certain pair of earrings, especially when the RC is so vast that no one woman could ever wear everything. No one’s ignoring Camila’s status but when it comes to RC pieces that were associated with Diana it makes sense that people would wonder if both of her daughters-in-law would have access. But if Diana was only lent the pieces she was because she was Princess of Wales then yes that would mean that those jewels would only (eventually) go to Kate. Of course no one will really know until one or both of them show up wearing them.

    • GM says:

      I’m rolling my eyes at the Sun’s “impeccably placed” source. Seriously though- WHO are spreading these rumors?? Obviously, it’s rankling BP which can’t be good.

  25. Skeptical says:

    There are people who just aren’t happy unless they think Elizabeth is enacting some petty fantasy protocol to satisfy their personal class and racial prejudices.

    • Yami says:

      They just wanna see Meg put down and will latch on to anything that makes their fantasy happen. It’s so obvious, it’s laughable.

  26. Anastasia says:

    What I don’t believe is that the Queen told Will that only HIS wife can borrow royal jewelry. That doesn’t even sound like her.

    • jan90067 says:

      Even IF this was true, it is saying TQ is lending certain pieces to certain ladies dependent on their royal hierarchy/status. IE: pieces that only a Princess of Wales can wear/has worn will be worn by the current and next PoW. Pieces TQ wears may ONLY be worn by the current Queen, or VERY possibly by the *current* PoW. While Sophie is styled as a Countess, she is technically a Duchess (with the rumor that Ed is waiting for Philip’s title, DoE “when the time comes). Meghan, being a Duchess of a 2nd son, will not have access to the same jewels that Kate and Camilla will be wearing. Beatrice, Eugenie, Zara, and Autumn most likely will not have access to what Sophie and Meg may wear, and so on.

      This is my take… if (BIG *IF*) this is a true article.

  27. intheknow says:

    I don’t believe this story. Also, when you are in charge like the TQ, you have to set boundaries otherwise people run over you.

  28. Mary says:

    Oh boy, so much I would like to say but I will try to keep it short…In the past, there has been no evident hierarchal order by which royal or private collection jewels of the Queen have been loaned. Also, there was no fast rule about the “level” of jewels at at what level event (white or black tie, e.g.) they may be worn. If that were the case, Fergie would not have been able to borrow one of (and I think it was the biggest one) Queen Victoria’s bow brooches for a (relatively) casual day trip to the highland games not long after her marriage to Andrew. Or, Sophie would not have been loaned the King Faisal necklace or given or loaned a tiara composed of elements from one of Queen Victoria’s coronets (her ugly wedding tiara) or Kate would not have worn the Nizam of Hyderabad necklace (definitely what I could consider a “white tie” piece) to an event at the National Portrait Gallery. There are simply too many instances decrying any hierarchal or suitability rules by which loans are made.

    While the Queen does appear to be pretty stingy in her loans I think it really is more of a matter who asks for what. Maybe Sophie is happy with the jewellery she has and is loaned. Maybe Kate just asks for more loans, which has over the last two years increased in both number and wow factor. However, do I think something is going on? Absolutely.

    It is very odd that the only piece of jewellery that Meghan has borrowed from the Queen is her wedding tiara. She made multiple trips abroad and was, as someone pointed out above, not even loaned a brooch signifying one of those countries. Some of you also pointed out that visits abroad to not warrant loans. Yet, Kate has been given such loans from the very beginning (e.g., the diamond chandelier earrings that she wore on the Canada visit).

    Surely the Queen has to be aware that Meghan not wearing any loans to date looks odd. Maybe she does want to send a message and has one of her mouthpieces (Angela Kelly) bad mouth Meghan. Maybe Angela Kelly has gone rogue and for whatever reason is badmouthing Meghan to suit her own purposes or maybe there is some truth to Tiara-gate and Meghan and Harry just decided that it was not worth borrowing any jewels from the Queen (especially if they have to go through Kelly to do it).

    I do not know of course what is going on but something is.

    • Becks1 says:

      The trips abroad are what make me think something IS going on. Maybe Meghan didn’t want to borrow anything, but she did a major tour of the South Pacific, with a few formal events in the mix, and she didn’t wear anything from the Queen? She went to Morocco at 36ish weeks pregnant (maybe 34, who knows) and she didn’t get a brooch or a really gorgeous bracelet or something? No, a tiara isn’t appropriate for those events, but it is starting to look weird that she hasn’t borrowed ANYTHING, despite some big events.

      I wonder too if Meghan has issues with some of the jewelry considering its sources, or has concerns about how the diamonds were obtained, etc. She tends to wear a lot of ethical jewelry so maybe she doesn’t want to go all out in bling from the british empire?

      • Tourmaline says:

        I hadn’t thought of the ethical jewelry angle — interesting.

      • Princessk says:

        If Meghan is concerned about the source of the jewellery and how it’s obtained she would have refused to join the RF altogether based on how they acquired their enormous wealth.

    • Tourmaline says:

      @Mary “maybe there is some truth to Tiara-gate and Meghan and Harry just decided that it was not worth borrowing any jewels from the Queen (especially if they have to go through Kelly to do it).”

      I like this theory — that something rather sour occurred over the wedding tiara and the Sussexes decided they are never dealing with Angela Kelly again. I’m sure all these jewel stories that have to be sourced to her won’t improve their working relationship!

  29. A says:

    If she hasn’t had an occasion to wear them to, why on earth would the Queen lend out anything from the royal collection’s jewelry?

    It’s not as if Meghan has been going to state visits and banquets and openings of parliament or weddings or coronations or any of those things so far. There are very few instances that call for so much jewelry, so logistically there just haven’t been any situations where she would need to borrow anything. So how could she be “demanding” when there’s nothing to demand, and how can the Queen ban anything when there’s no reason to do that?

    This whole story is such a big zero, it’s wild.

    • Mary says:

      Except that the Queen absolutely has routinely loaned jewellery for Black Tie events abroad for women (Kate, Sophie, etc.) representing the Queen, with their spouse, on an official visit. Aren’t these called “State Visits”? Or, if not a State Visit certainly they are an Official Visit in which they are representing the Queen. These visits absolutely do warrant jewellery loans. We know this because Kate has frequently borrowed jewellery from the Queen for like visits abroad; or, can you otherwise explain the loans to Kate on trips abroad for Black Tie events if such occasions do not warrant jewellery loans?

    • Becks1 says:

      States visits and banquets are not the only reason they would be loaned jewelry from the Royal Collection, as @Mary detailed above. Not everything in the vault is something like the Nizam of Hyderabad. The link @Tourmaline posted shows some of the smaller pieces Kate has worn as well (“smaller”) – simpler earrings, some gorgeous bracelets that would work for things below a black tie or white tie, etc.

      The Queen doesn’t only loan pieces for major events and I’m not sure why that particular idea is gaining traction.

      Now, that I do look at that link at what Kate has borrowed – I can see why Meghan might be passing on some of the earrings, they do not seem her style at all. Gorgeous and jewel-laden, but some of them are dated, for sure.

      also, it reminds me that it took Kate YEARS to figure out how to wear bling properly. She wore those gorgeous sapphire fringe earrings with that hideous Erdem dress and her hair down, hiding the earrings. She wore the Nizam with her hair down, completely blocking the view of the necklace. She’s gotten better about that in recent years though. If you’re going to wear bling, show it off!

  30. intheknow says:

    Has it occurred to anyone that MAYBE Meghan isn’t that fussed about the Royal collection? Maybe she isn’t ready to go full bling? Maybe it is not he style?? Maybe it is all true which is why they’ve given her 500K clothing budget as consolation?

    Until she goes on Opra and cries her eyes out that she was told to keep her hands out of the royal cookie jar, I am pretty ‘meh’ about it. It is not like she doesn’t have hundreds of thousands of dollars of jewellery given to her as her very own as wedding gifts.

    Maybe Meghan doesn’t GAF and is just doing her thing. Also, she is actually so beautiful she doesn’t need ALL that bling which I think would be a distraction from her natural beauty.

    Let lazy ass Kate be lazy ass bling wearing Kate. Meghan has had to spend 2 years battling her psycho family, I think jewellery was probably the last thing on her mind. IF in the next year or two she isn’t getting bling from the royal collection, then I am prepared to think the story is true.

    She is properly blinged out with her bump! She doesn’t need anything more than that at the moment!

  31. Ladiabla says:

    I wonder who got the sapphire pendant that was part of the suite given to Diana by a Saudi prince for her wedding? She’s wearing it in a pic where she has on a pink dress with straps with bows on her shoulders. I’ve seen the pearl choker with the massive sapphire gifted to her by the queen mother, but I want to know where that sapphire pendant is lol. Who gets it??? I mean, that would be part of Diana’s private jewelry collection, no? That necklace is gorge and would be stunning on both duchesses, particularly Meghan. I love Diana’s aquamarine ring that Harry gifted her with for the wedding. Beautiful

  32. Terry says:

    Sweaty Nazi Betty is a bitch if it is true that she hid her stolen treasures from the ancestor of those countries that her family stole them. I despise those racist vipers even more. Infinite blessing to H and M plus the new baby.

    • Tina says:

      Call her whatever you want, except that. That woman served in the ATS in WWII fighting the Nazis. Please don’t call her a Nazi.

  33. Effeff says:

    Centuries of colonial plundering have cumulated in one old white biddy having “one of the grandest jewel collections” to use to be a petty asshole to her in-laws. The royals are so revolting.

  34. Gina says:

    The Queen doesn’t really “punish” royal ladies by refusing jewelry.
    But she does support royal ladies for good services (royal duties) by lending them jewelry. Because if a royal lady does well in royal duties then she might need the jewelry for all sorts of social gatherings. If the Queen thinks a royal lady does well then the Queen will support her. That is how it works.

    Kate got a modest small tiara for her wedding (borrowed) but hardly anything afterwards, did she? She was allowed to borrow that maple leaf diamond brooch for her visit to Canada but what else did she get from the Royal Collection? Kate rarely wore any jewelry except for big blue and her wedding ring and sometimes tiny earrings in her first years. And those acorn earrings were a present from her parents.
    By now she sometimes comes out with different and bigger tiaras and necklaces and I remember some kind of bracelet, too. Jewelry-wise Kate is rather modest for a Royal.

    And if there is any truth about Meghan wanting to borrow more jewelry …well… what the Queen says is like what your boss tells you to do. And your boss is never wrong even when the boss is wrong, right?

    So Meghan will just have to wait and keep going.

    • intheknow says:

      I wish I could upvote or ‘like’ your comment.

    • Mary says:

      Kate notably wore the diamond chandelier earrings (which were loans from the Queen) on her first Canada/US tour. She has received significant loans from the beginning, albeit not that many (Diana never borrowed that much so Kate not receiving many loans in the beginning is not unusual). It is only recently, the last couple of years (really with Meghan coming on the scene), with Kate that more loans are being made for whatever reason and I doubt that it has to do with a sterling work record. I think it has more to do with Kate asking for loans. I also wonder if this borrowing brouhaha has to do with Kate or William not wanting anyone to wear the jewels that Kate has already borrowed. Maybe Kate wants sole access to all of the significant jewellery (I am imagining her running around the Queen’s jewellery vault licking all of the pieces that she does not want the other royal ladies to wear!!). Well, it’s a theory!

      • Gina says:

        It is kind of customary that one piece of jewelry doesn’t adorn several royal ladies in short time. So whatever one royal lady wore is kind of “burnt” for the others for a while.
        Therefore the Queen does consider very carefully which pieces adorn which chest. The Queen plays that jewelry game very seriously but she doesn’t really punish people.

        Kate and William’s Canada tour was a VERY big thing. The heir and his wife introduced themselves to the Commonwealth and tried to improve relations with a lot of them. It also lasted quite long.
        Meghan just isn’t married to the heir nor did she get such a big nor such an important tour nor that long.
        IF she asked because it is just gossip.
        And if Meghan really wanted to wear a tiara to a dinner in Fiji which is rather small and not that rich (ca . 900.000 inhabitants, GDP/capita around $ 10.000) … really. Perhaps the other ladies at the table didn’t have jewelry to match the Queen’s and therefore they shouldn’t have been shamed? What does it look like when Meghan appears in a tiara and the wives of the President and the Prime minister don’t have anything to match?
        Nowadays the Royals are less about exercising their superiority during public events which is why they wear less jewelry.

  35. Nat says:

    After this whole drama regarding silly jewellery Meaghan should teach everyone a lesson and not wear any going forward.
    Focus on her charity work and taking care of her beautiful family (Harry and all her future children)
    If her grandmother-in-law cares so much about this stuff she might as well be buried with it -
    It’s just so shallow and vain.

  36. Mabs A'Mabbin says:

    The fact were discussing tiaras, royal jewelry and who gets to play dress-up is quite vomitus mass.

  37. RoyalBlue says:

    I don’t think the queen punishes anyone, but her courtiers surely do. I get the feeling that they are the keeper of rules and traditions and take it pretty seriously. I agree there is a hierarchy that must be observed.

    When Meghan got married I was actually hoping she would not wear a tiara and instead wear a crown of flowers. Truly be the people’s princess.

    • Tina says:

      Sarah Ferguson did that (partially) in 1986. Went into the church in a crown of flowers and out in a tiara.

  38. Anare says:

    This whole story is more bullshit to make Megan look bad. Where is any evidence that she has asked to wear jewelry and been turned down. We have one gossip rag posting a story that she wanted a certain tiara and was told no. It’s a nonsense story. All the royal brides wear a tiara. I’m willing to bet the Queen told her jewelry person to pull a few out and let Megan choose one. It would not make any sense to offer or show her tiaras that were off limits or already promised to another princess. Plus be honest. Have any of us seen Megan behave in such a way? Is she known to be greedy and constantly trying to be flashy and blingy? All I have seen of her is quite the opposite. That brings us to the story of Megan “wanting” to wear a tiara to a dinner in Fiji and being told no. Again the story was initially told that she might have asked if she should wear one and Charles said it might look OTT so let’s not. That makes perfect sense. She was learning royal protocol so she might have thought that was expected and Charles said it might send the wrong message. Again, considering the bits of Megan we have seen she would probably say say ok makes sense don’t want to offend anyone. And they all moved on. That plausible story is now ratcheted up to Megan asking to wear giant necklaces and earrings and brooches of the sort that the Queen wears to every visit to a charity or walk about. And that the Queen is telling William that she’s not going to let that greedy little upstart Megan get her hands in the big jewelry box. Just to be especially insulting the story is spun to say Megan sure as hell won’t get to wear any jewelry Diana wore. More crap that is spun to make Megan look “less than” and if you don’t see the racism at play there you need to open your mind a little wider. Megan hasn’t attended any functions to which she would wear big jewels from the Royal Collection. If and when she does I’m sure certain jewelry is earmarked for the Queen, Camilla and Kate and other pieces that are offered to other princesses and duchesses. Since Diana was in the second seat that Camilla now occupies she wore some big jewelry. I can understand if some of those pieces are earmarked for Camilla and later for Kate. And keep in mind that what Diana wore and what functions she attended were 30 years ago. The royal family has changed, times have changed. They aren’t rolling out as many splashy events where they would pile on the big jewelry. So pieces that Diana wore might only be for whomever is Princess of Wales. I doubt Megan is ringing up the Queen demanding to wear a giant necklace to a panel discussion on children’s mental health care, right? Someone in the palace is feeding crap to the rag newspapers so they can write their nasty little digs. It’s orchestrated to take some of the shine off Megan and Harry. We can have grand fun speculating who is behind the stories but not for a minute so I think any of it is true.

  39. PleaseAndThankYou says:

    Stop posting spam!

  40. Dako says:

    Great place to post spam, there is no way for us to report it so you’ve go free rein.