I shred comments like these for breakfast...

If you've had the misfortune to read my blogs before you'll know where this rant is going.

I am an EGALITARIAN. I believe that fundamental equality is an ABSOLUTE BASELINE of where we should be working from as a society. The fact people think there's equality when there blatantly isn't is INFURIATING.

In the interests of full disclosure I identify as agender which basically means keep your gender stereotypes and expectations out of my cornflakes.

I am also an opinionated potato meaning I can't keep my rants to myself if my life depends on it.

And no, I do not apologise for swearing.

So, I saw this comment and just had to shred it:

"How ridiculous, what inequality has his wife suffered because of her "race", she's excelled & married a Prince to boot. His children will thrive just like other children, regardless of their "race", with the added advantage of their wealthy parents which others don't have. As for his daughter having to deal with "gender equality", this is the real world & women are quite able to hold their own with men these days. I doubt very much that Harry and his family will experience the problems that ordinary working class families will."

1) "What inequality has his wife suffered because of her "race"" - first up, FUCK OFF WITH THE SCARE QUOTES. How dare you imply that it's anything less than a real and valid factor in how she's been treated?! How goddamned BLIND are you that you can't see the racism in the thread you are currently commenting on??? One thing that particularly gets me in every damn thread is the microaggression of misspelling her name. Honestly, there's an article where (9 times out of 10) it's in the headline but somehow y'all type 'Megan' over and over.

Here's an example of a multitude of times Meghan has been disrespected for doing the EXACT SAME THINGS as her white sister in law: https://www.boredpanda.com/uk-media-double-standarts-royal-meghan-markle-kate-middleton/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic

Catherine is disrespected in two ways - calling her Kate which she hates, and referring to her by her maiden name ten years and three kids into her marriage - but never once have I seen her called a gold-digger or a monkey.

Sure, there are a couple of other differences, Meghan is American, an actress and a divorcee... but I personally have never seen one comment that has even implied those factors have anything to do with the constant stream of hate she's been subjected to.

TBH I think that the public's general loathing of Meghan has a lot to do with her cutting out her toxic af abusive father... who just so happens to be her white parent. If she was seen to be 'embracing' her white family (even though they're the worst trash) I imagine the public might be a little kinder. Which is the stupidest reason for keeping a man like Thomas in your life.

2) "she's excelled & married a Prince to boot" - you really can't see this as being the cause of a lot of her problems?! I don't know how much sh*t she got on a daily basis before she was linked to Prince Harry but I am willing to bet vital body parts that it was a drop in the ocean compared to what she's dealt with over the past few years.

3) "His children will thrive just like other children, regardless of their "race", with the added advantage of their wealthy parents which others don't have" First up, not all children thrive... lots of minority ethnic and mixed kids really suffer, especially in an education system which expects them to fail, and often leads them by the hand to that eventuality.

Even if Harry & Meghan opt for private education Archie & Lilibet will still be in a minority. They'll be additionally othered by their royal status too.

And just go look at the substance abuse and suicide rates among the kids of celebrities. Rather than growing up in an ivory tower they tend to burn up under the magnifying glass of public scrutiny. Wealth provides many privileges but it causes many more problems; but more than that it's the royalty aspect... they can never escape. Wealth provides no protection or respite.

4) "As for his daughter having to deal with "gender equality"" again with the scare quotes like gender equality is a thing that exists. Women are asked about babies & relationships in interviews, men are asked about their work. Women serve less time for the same crime, men are less likely to get custody of their children.

There are DOZENS of articles on the sexualisation of young female celebrities, with special attention to how gross it gets when they 'come of age':

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniesoteriou/millie-bobby-brown-18th-birthday-creepy-sexualized-child

https://www.sheknows.com/entertainment/slideshow/2509093/celebrities-sexualized-young/

What on earth makes y'all think Lilibet will escape this???? Even if she's fortunate enough to grow up fat and fugly enough not to be targeted that way she'll be forever disregarded and disrespected as a human being because women pretty much only have value if they're attractive.

Similarly Archie will run a very minimal risk of public comment on his looks or body type. That, my dear gammon, is why gender equality doesn't exist.

5) "this is the real world & women are quite able to hold their own with men these days" Again, the 'real world' (which this guy clearly knows very little about) is rife with gender inequality but women shouldn't have to 'hold their own' like it's a goddamned battle!

6) "experience the problems that ordinary working class families will" Gatekeeping suffering is a really bad look. The bizarre idea that only the 'working classes' experience problems in life... IT DOESN'T WORK LIKE THAT!!! I'd rather be 'poor, obscure, plain and little' than face the wrath that the royal family, celebrities and other in-the-public-eye people face.

The idea that rich people don't suffer like poor people supposedly do is nonsensical. Take the sad, current story about footballer Cristiano Ronaldo and his partner Georgina Rodriguez. Y'all think they don't suffer the loss of their twin baby boy any differently than any working class family?! *Maybe* they're better placed to pay medical costs, funeral costs, therapy to cope with their bereavement... but that's as far as money, status, or privilege goes. The practical aspects only, the pain itself is universal.

There are people bitching about why they were having more children anyway when they already have a daughter together and Ronaldo has other kids via surrogacy (er, large families are okay?), people posting crying-from-laughter emojis, people choosing to make nasty jibes at his skill as a footballer. And I know there's been worse, although thankfully most threads have been good at getting the most offensive stuff deleted fairly quickly.

Even some of the gestures of sympathy are dubious af - everything happens for a reason and it's God's will are incredibly hurtful things to say. Then there's this:

"Liverpool fans are planning a minute's applause in the seventh minute for Cristiano Ronaldo during Manchester United's visit to Anfield this evening following the heartbreaking news of his baby son's death.

Absolutely class!"

How the hell is applauding a dead baby an act of respect or 'class'?! the time-honoured gesture is a SILENCE. I hate to think how the public would react if Archie or Lilibet passed... Commemorative tat memorabilia perhaps?! Just think how Meghan was treated when she revealed she'd miscarried another child... accusations of her cashing in on the loss mama label. Speculation she was lying.

At least most working class families get to suffer their problems, bereavements, etc. etc. in relative obscurity and comparative peace.

Wedding Gown Addendum

I wrote a blog entitled "On the subject of Royal wedding gowns" in response to the marriage of Harry and Meghan (pub. 22 May 2018) it seems only fitting that following the marriage of Beatrice and Count Eduardo Mappeli Mozzi I do a bit of an update.

First we need to go back to the wedding of Prince Andrew and Sarah Fergusson in 1986.
I make no apologies for my love of this couple. They were the royal pairing of my childhood and I still think they're adorable. I will be devastated if the allegations against Andrew are proven; I think the allegations are most likely founded in a desire for notoriety or to deflect public interest away from Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's numerous other high profile contacts...
Anyway, the point is this was the royal wedding that had the greatest impact on me and it's only right to reference it in a blog about their daughters.
Sarah's wedding gown was waaay better than Diana's "heap of crumpled hankies" look while being very eighties. It was also embellished with lots of symbolism which is a thing I really like.

Maybe I just have a thing for younger sons because I won't book much criticism of Harry and Meghan either, HOWEVER, using Princess Eugenie's wedding as an opportunity to announce their pregnancy with Archie was a major faux pas.
Princess Eugenie, Andrew and Sarah's younger daughter, married Jack Brooksbank (a British wine merchant) on October 12th, 2018.

The particularly noteworthy detail about Princess Eugenie's gown was the open back / lack of veil combination. Princess Eugenie had spinal surgery for scoliosis as a child and wanted her scar visible to empower others.

I thought Princess Eugenie's choice of gown was superb - classic, elegant, and meaningful.

I must confess that I feel... 'dubious' of Princess Beatrice's new husband, Eduardo Mapelli Mozzi, but I wish her every happiness. I feel intensely for Princess Beatrice too as she had to postpone her wedding due to the chaos of Covid-19.

Princess Beatrice finally wed her 'Count' on 17th July 2020 and officially became the first royal-born step-mama of the modern era as Eduardo has a son Christopher "Woolfie" (b. 2016) with his former partner. The first photos released make me think how much she looks like her mum and I love the eighties vibe she's got going on with her gown. As much as anything I think it's nice to see sisters do it their own ways; no indication of trying to 'out do' each other... and sadly there was a lot of speculation of that kind as the younger sister married first. Ye gods I loathe the way the press treats the royal family!
As yet there is little to go upon as to why Princess Beatrice chose the gown she did but I love it... from the beading reminiscent of the 1920s, the poofy 80s sleeves, the deep contrast hem which screams 70s at me for no adequately explained reason... But most of all I love her smile. Her big day may not have been as big as she'd planned and dreamed of but I truly hope it was everything she wanted it to be.

EDIT
Well, I missed my guess three times over with the dress (mostly) dating to 1961! Honestly, three whole decades guessed and still wrong LOL.
Here it is, being worn - sans sleeves - by her grandmother, HM Queen Elizabeth II:

And another photo from Beatrice's wedding:

White-privilege or targeting the vulnerable, regardless?

I've seen a lot of commentary about the racism at play in the press regarding Meghan, Duchess of Sussex and this article in particular emphasises the crap she's had to deal with, comparing headlines about her with virtually identical instances featuring Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-double-standards-royal?utm_source=dynamic&bftwnews&utm_term=4ldqpgc#4ldqpgc
This pair of headlines from the Daily Mail sums it up rather well as they're by the same writer, only weeks apart:
"How Kate went from drab to fab! From eyebrows and pilates to a new style guru, our experts reveal the Duchess of Cambridge's secrets to looking sizzling" - Sarah Vine 14 Jun 2019
"My memo to Meghan Markle following her Vogue editorial - we Brits prefer true royalty to fashion royalty" - Sarah Vine 29 Jul 2019
If you don't want to click the link other examples include: 
Praising Catherine's simple and elegant choice of wedding flowers (inc Lily Of The Valley) to claiming Meghan put her bridesmaids lives at risk...for using Lily Of The Valley. 
Saying simply that William and Catherine would be spending Christmas with the Middletons in 2016, pointing out that they also had in 2011 - the first year they were married; but accusing Meghan and Harry of snubbing the Queen when they chose to spend Christmas with her mother in 2019 - the first year with their son. 
Positive coverage of Prince Louis' Christening (which the Queen did not attend) and criticising the Sussexes planning because the Queen was unavailable when they'd scheduled Archie's Christening.
Note: these examples are all tabloid press - The Sun, The Express, The Daily Mail and so on.

That stories are handled differently whether they are about Catherine (with or without William) or Meghan (with or without Harry) is pretty clear.
It is also worth noting that the press is pretty disrespectful of BOTH Duchesses - Catherine is repeatedly called Kate although she is supposed to be styled Catherine. Both are repeatedly called by their maiden names of Middleton and Markle despite being married with children - although many women choose to keep their name after marriage it is traditionally a great insult because it strips a woman of her married, and in this case Royal, status and implies illegitimacy of her children!

The question is: 
Is the press prejudice against Meghan RACIST?

Whilst quite probably there are racist motivations for the press' shitty attitude toward the Duchess it's a problematic assumption to make as nothing provably racist has been indicated; although certainly the public comments on these various stories can be overt.
I understand, to an extent, the accusation of white-privilege - that because I am white and see no racism in the press' words doesn't mean it's not there. However, the reverse also holds true - it is possible to be black (or indeed any ethnicity) and see racism which is not there. [Edit: claiming racism purely on the basis of Meghan's skin colour is itself an unfounded racial bias]

Back in the dark ages of my youth the press was being shitty to Diana, Princess of Wales (the former Diana Spencer) and Sarah, Duchess of York (the former Sarah Fergusson). The spouses of Anne and Edward largely seem to escape such attention - possibly a throwback to the idea of an heir (Charles) and a spare (Andrew), which would apply to William and Harry also.
Both of them were white but the press had a whale of a time hurling abuse at the both of them. It's easy to remember the hell they put Diana through as she died as her car attempted to out-race paparazzi but Sarah's marriage was destroyed and press attention / intrusion caused her a great deal of harm as well. I have decided to include their examples in this blog in the hope it might create a slightly better basis for comparison.

Is this 'simply' a matter of the press, limited in the shit they can throw at the royal family themselves feeling justified in targeting the 'outsiders'? In which case, why has Catherine been virtually left alone? Perhaps they decided to give her a pass because she is mother to the heir to the throne?
Certainly a lot has changed in the decades since Diana's death but the press are still happy to target Meghan - why?

If an argument is to be made that this is racism in action we'd need to exclude other factors which could cause prejudice.

First, nationality.

• Diana, British
• Sarah, British
• Catherine, British
• Meghan, American

Meghan is certainly different in this regard. Anti-American sentiment isn't usually a thing in Britain but then the last time and American got close to a Prince it almost brought down the whole monarchy. I don't really credit this theory but it can't be ignored as a factor in making Meghan an 'outsider' and a target for negative press attention.
Prince Philip similarly started out deeply unpopular because he was Greek and whether that xenophobic streak is still relevant it's hard to say. Prince Harry's former girlfriend Chelsy Davy is Zimbabwean but their relationship never reached the point where she was targeted by the press - whether she would have been welcomed (as a white woman) or vilified as a foreigner cannot be known.

Secondly, pre-marital styles and social class.

• Diana was the Honourable Diana Frances Spencer - daughter of the 8th Earl Spencer. Parents divorced 1969. Both parents remarried and her stepmother was the only child of romantic novelist Dame Barbara Cartland.
• Sarah was Miss Sarah Margaret Fergusson - daughter of Major Ronald Fergusson. Parents divorced 1974. Both parents remarried - her stepfather was Argentinian.
• Catherine was Miss Catherine Elizabeth Middleton - daughter of Michael and Elizabeth Middleton who are described as 'upper middle class' and remain married.
• Meghan was Miss Rachel Meghan Markle - daughter of Thomas Markle Sr and Doria Ragland who divorced in 1987. Neither parent has remarried.

All four are considered 'commoners' but all commoners are not created equal - Diana's father was an Earl, Sarah's was a Major. With three of them come from broken homes it seems unlikely to be a factor.
Public opinion seemed clear at the time of the wedding that sympathy was strongly with Doria - who had largely raised Meghan as a single mother (Diana and Sarah's mothers both having new partners to support them) - and against Thomas - whose heart attack ahead of the wedding meant he could not attend seemed suspiciously unverified and curiously timed as his attendance had already had doubt cast upon it. Doria has handled herself well, as has her extended family. In contrast Thomas has courted media attention, as has Meghan's half sister Samantha Markle and, to a lesser extent, her half brother Thomas Markle Jr.
Personally I find it curious that Mr Markle has been given a platform at all. Nothing I have seen from him has been in any way 'in the public interest'. Is his voice being heard because he is white? I don't think so, personally. I think he's being heard because it makes it easier for the press to legitimise Meghan as a target - a royal target they haven't had since Diana's death. I can't think of any example of a royal bride being undermined by her own family in such a way. Even Diana's dysfunctional relationship with her stepmother never sunk to such depths.

Thirdly, pre-marital life.

• Diana, age at marriage: 20, occupation: kindergarten assistant, status: single.
• Sarah, age at marriage: 25, occupation: worked various jobs which are not clearly documented, status: single
• Catherine, age at marriage: 29, occupation: worked in her family's business doing 'catalogue design & production, marketing and photography', status: single.
• Meghan, age at marriage: 36, occupation: actress, status: divorced.

Again there is a bit of variety here but three distinct factors stand out - Meghan was the oldest royal bride by nearly a decade although I have no idea why that might make any difference; she was previously in the 'disreputable' business of being an actress*; she was divorced - bringing to the fore the comparison to Wallis Simpson again.

* Although unlikely to be considered nowadays actresses were historically associated with prostitution and a career in which deception is kind of the point led to even more successful actresses being outcast from polite society. it is worth noting that whilst Meghan's acting skills have been unkindly critiqued she's also dismissed as a 'consummate actress' any time she shows emotion.

Whether any of these factors in any way explains the press vilification of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, it seems clear to me that there are multiple potential reasons why she has been singled out as a particular target, none of which can be definitely excluded.

• American (xenophobia, comparison to Wallis Simpson)
• Raised by a single mother (classism, the tabloids have long enjoyed slagging off single mothers)
• Undermined by her father and step-siblings (family collusion in targeting her)
• Older bride (ageism, although unlikely relevance)
• Former actress (classism)
• Divorcee (possible classism? Comparison to Wallis Simpson)
• Mixed race (racism, colourism) 

What is also clear is that Meghan herself has done nothing whatsoever to warrant such vile and unreasonable treatment.
I have every sympathy for the couple and support their decision to step back from the front line.
Whilst I fully support the Queen sharing out the workload, Charles has expressed the desire for a slimmed-down monarchy. The royal family are damned if they aren't seen to be doing enough to 'earn their keep' and damned if they want to live their own lives it seems.

Royal Baby Name Guesses

Royal baby name odds, from William Hill, updated 29/04/19

Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2019/04/29/royal-baby-name-odds-title-meghan-markle-prince-harry/

Girls
1. Diana 4/1
2. Victoria 7/1
3. Alice 12/1
4. Grace 12/1
5. Isabella / Isobella 12/1
6. Elizabeth 14/1
7. Alexandra 20/1
8. Harriett 20/1
9. Rose 20/1
10. April 25/1

Boys
1. Arthur 16/1
2. James 16/1
3. Edward 25/1
4. Albert 33/1
5. Alexander 33/1
6. Christopher 33/1
7. Daniel 33/1
8. Henry 33/1
9. Phillip 33/1
10. Joseph 40/1

My Opinions
For girls I'd like to throw Diana, Grace, Isabella, Harriett, Rose AND April out of consideration. IF a month name were to be used, May would be better as Harry's great great grandmother Mary of Teck was known as May, and we're nearly in May now. That leaves Victoria, Alice, Elizabeth and Alexandra from the top bets... Harriet was on my list of preferred names but not with two t's and because it was a great grandmother's name.
For the boys names I'll throw out Edward, Albert, Christopher, Daniel, Henry and Joseph. I think it very unlikely the baby will be named Henry as that's Harry's proper name and that is rather out of fashion of late. That leaves Arthur, James, Alexander and Phillip. Arthur Alexander was one of my top picks if I'd ever had a boy.
A good few people have suggested the idea of twins in which case using Elizabeth and Phillip would be rather nice but I don't think twins are especially likely as Meghan is allegedly planning a home birth and has apparently gone to full-term. Not that these things CAN'T happen but an older first time mum having Royal twins at home seems a stretch too far and an early labour is statistically more likely.
Obviously many other names have been suggested including a nod to Meghan's mother, Doria...I wonder if they might splice Doria and Diana like Renesmee in The Twilight Saga who was named after Bella's mum Renee and Edward's adoptive mum Esme. Daria? Dorana? Hmmm...
Unlisted names I think might make an appearance are Helena and Leopold.

My Prediction
Names in order of preference and using the Royal family's tendency to give four Christian names:
Girl: Helena Alice Doriana Victoria
Boy: Arthur Alexander Leopold James

Now just for time to tell.

EDIT - 03/05/19

Royal baby name odds, from William Hill, updated 03/05/19
Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2019/05/03/royal-baby-name-odds-meghan-markle-prince-harry-boy-girl/

Girls
1. Diana 4/1 (no change)
2. Allegra 8/1 (new)
3. Grace 8/1 (up from #4 at 12/1)
4. Alice 12/1 (down from #3, same odds)
5. Isabella / Isobella 12/1 (no change)
6. Victoria 14/1 (down from #2 at 7/1)
7. Elizabeth 20/1 (down from #6 at 14/1)
8. Alexandra 20/1 (down from #7, same odds)
9. April 25/1 (up from #10, same odds)
10. Catherine 25/1 (new)
Harriett and Rose have left the top 10 in exchange for Allegra (rather like it) and Catherine (good name but the same as Harry's sister in law? That'd be a tad odd...although it would put those stupid feud rumours to bed).
I've started thinking of Eleanor as a good, classic Royal name long overdue for a comeback. I am still VERY much of the opinion that if they don't use Doriana for a daughter they are very very wrong indeed. So my updated girls' name is now Eleanor Doriana Victoria - also shifting to the three christian names pattern adopted by William & Catherine.

Boys
1. Arthur 12/1 (up from 16/1)
2. James 16/1 (no change)
3. Albert 20/1 (up from #4 at 33/1)
4. Edward 33/1 (down from #3 at 25/1)
5. Alexander 33/1 (no change)
6. Christopher 33/1 (no change)
7. Daniel 33/1 (no change)
8. Henry 33/1 (no change)
9. Oliver 40/1 (new)
10. Phillip 40/1 (down from #9 at 33/1)
So only one new entry - Oliver has been a very popular name in the UK for a long time but it's association with Oliver Cromwell makes me point and laugh at the idea of it being used as a Royal baby name.
I'm still quite happy with my boys' name guess but if I was switching to a 3 name combo I'm not sure which I'd drop... Arthur Alexander Leopold, Arthur Leopold James? Hmmm, wonder if either of them are James Arthur fans?! Maybe Harry is more of an Ed Sheeran fan...remember the commemorative plate incident (source: https://planetradio.co.uk/heat/entertainment/celebrity/ed-sheeran-prince-harry-mistake-plate/)? Maybe for a 2nd guess I'll go Arthur Leopold Edward ;)

CONCLUSION
#BabySussex was a BOY - delivered safely on Monday 6th May 2019 at 05:26 BST and weighing 7lbs 3oz. It was announced on the 8th that Harry and Meghan are naming their son ARCHIE HARRISON MOUNTBATTEN-WINDSOR, he does not have a title at this time. Basically all the top guesses were wrong - from the expectation of a girl to the two or three expected middle names. No idea where Archie might've appeared in the betting, if indeed it was suggested at all. On the plus side maybe their naming a potential future daughter 'Doriana' isn't so unlikely after all!

Someone on Twitter disagreed with my bet on 'Arthur' (despite it being the top of the bookies shortlist by that time) "as Pippa just had a son she named Arthur" ...Pippa being Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge's sister Philippa Matthews nee Middleton. As such she is no relation to Harry & Meghan so her choice of baby name is fairly irrelevant.
If such a thing were a factor it obviously means very little to the Royals as evidenced by Prince Louis of Cambridge, William & Catherine's third child. Louis Arthur Charles was born a little over a year ago. Not only does he share a name with older brother Prince George (George Alexander Louis) and his father (William Arthur Philip Louis) but he also has a STEP COUSIN of the same name! Prince William and Prince Harry's stepbrother Tom Parker-Bowles has two children LOLA (b. 2007) and FREDDY (b. 2010) and their stepsister Laura Lopes has three children ELIZA (b. 2007) and twins GUS and LOUIS (b. 2009) - all these step cousins having been born since Prince Charles marriage to their grandmother Camilla in 2005.

I very much like the name 'Archie' but I'm not a huge fan of 'Harrison' because - and you can laugh at this - I don't like surnames used as Christian names. Yes, I know 'Heggie' is a surname and yes, I chose it myself. Surnames are good as gender neutral names though...
Speaking of this a good few people liked the name 'Spencer' - after Princess Diana's maiden name - for a child of either gender. Despite her enduring popularity I can't imagine it being used as a Royal baby forename, a middle name perhaps, but overall I would rather William and Harry looked to the future in their own families. Not only that but let's not lose sight of the fact that Catherine and Meghan both have their own families and connections - it is not only William and Harry who might want to commemorate loved ones in their naming of their children. 

On the subject of Royal wedding gowns

I remember when the BBC ran a reputable news site *sigh*...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-44202178

First of all "Katy Perry slams Meghan's wedding dress" is a grossly overstated headline for the 'critical' quote ""I would have done one more fitting." Indeed, since I started typing up this blog entry they've changed the headline to "Katy Perry says Meghan Markle's wedding dress 'needed another fitting'" 

Many brides lose weight in the run-up to the big day...particularly noticeable in the wedding gown of Sophie, Countess of Wessex in 1999. But whilst comment on the fit of Sophie's gown was acceptable nineteen years ago it is now considered akin to body shaming and I felt that Katy Perry's comment could be a little backhanded in that regard.

Prince Edward and Sophie Rhys-Jones, 1999

Perhaps Meghan's gown could have been a little closer fitted but it was simple, elegant, understated and classic. It fitted Meghan's style perfectly and suited her. Literally the only other criticism you could make of it was that it was 'too plain' but that was very much the point; Meghan's feature piece was her veil - embroidered with flowers to represent all 53 Commonwealth nations and also her native California 

(https://metro.co.uk/2018/05/20/sketches-reveal-hidden-details-meghan-markles-wedding-veil-7562878/).

Meghan Markle's veil as she arrived to wed Prince Harry

The new Duchess of Sussex emerges from St George's Chapel

I think, given that she was marrying a younger son, it was important for Meghan not to be seen to be trying to 'out-do' her sister-in-law's wedding dress. 

Catherine Middleton, now Duchess of Cambridge,

married Harry's elder brother Prince William in 2011]

Catherine's wedding dress was not as elaborate as many from the past reflecting current tastes but taking into consideration her expected future role as Queen Consort - a role Meghan does not have to worry about as following the births of William's children - Prince George (2013), Princess Charlotte (2015) and Prince Louis (2018) - Prince Harry is now in sixth place and it is exceedingly improbable he shall reign.

There is also a certain danger in going too far. Sarah Ferguson who married Prince Andrew Duke of York in 1986 received a fair amount of criticism for being over the top. Her train was 17 feet long and featured intertwined beaded initials as well as other symbols representing Andrew's navy career and her family crest embelished an ivory silk dress.

(Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/fashion/people/royal-wedding-dresses-years/sarah-ferguson-wedding-dress/)

But the symbolism didn't end with beaded detailing on the dress - 

Sarah arrived on her father's arm wearing a headdress of flowers (above) 

which was removed at the signing of the register to reveal a tiara (below)

to show her transition from commoner to Princess.

Her veil was 20 feet long.

Much of this could have been interpreted as trying (too hard?) to follow in Princess Diana's footsteps. Diana's dress was ivory silk taffeta and featured lace, hand embroidery, sequins, 10,000 pearls and a 25 foot long train! She also had her and Charles' initials as feature...hand painted onto the arches of her shoes. 

(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding_of_Charles,_Prince_of_Wales,_and_Lady_Diana_Spencer)

I feel the criticisms of Sarah's gown are unfair - the eighties was all about being over the top and it was her wedding to her prince and she could have what she wanted so far as I'm concerned. Also, Andrew and Sarah's wedding was THE royal event of my childhood so I may be a tad biased.

I also feel the pedestal of perfection Diana is placed upon is unwarranted. Particularly at the breakdown of her marriage it was emphasised that she'd been a bride of 20 to his 32, but she was no naive child; she wanted to be queen and she wanted her place in history - the length of her wedding train was from her express wish to have the longest in Royal Wedding history. 

Wedding Gowns of Queens

 Victoria was already Queen when she married 

Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha in 1840.

Alexandra of Denmark married Albert Edward, Prince of Wales in 1863.

He became Edward VII in 1901.

Mary of Teck, bride of Prince George, Duke of York (later George V)

who was then second in line for the throne after his father.

They married in 1893 and became king & queen in 1910

Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon married Prince Albert, Duke of York in 1923.

Although Bertie was then second in line to the throne Elizabeth did not expect to become queen as the first in line was still expected to marry and have issue.

When Edward VIII abdicated to marry Wallis Simpson in 1936 

Bertie became King George VI.

When Princess Elizabeth married Philip Mountbatten in 1947 she was heir apparent.

Her gown was paid for in WWII clothing ration coupons!

 Diana Spencer was considered a future queen when she married the heir apparent Charles, Prince of Wales in 1981. However, they divorced and she died young.

Despite the lasting popularity of Diana's wedding gown she emerged from the carriage looking like nothing but a bundle of crumpled hankies!

When Prince Charles married for a second time his bride,

Camilla Parker-Bowles (nee Shand),

was deemed so unpopular that it was announced that on Charles' accession 

she would be styled 'Princess Consort' instead of Queen. 

This statement has since been quietly removed.

As an older bride, divorced and with adult children 

Camilla opted for a very different type of wedding gown.

When Prince William married Kate Middleton (left) he was second in line to the throne after his father. Kate was certainly seen as a future queen.

By the time of Prince Harry's marriage to Meghan Markle (right)

Harry had moved down to sixth place so he and Meghan 

can expect a quieter, simpler life.

Meghan is not 'competing' for anything - she has her prince. She does not need to out-do Kate. She does not need a gown fit for a future queen. All she needed was to wear something she was comfortable with. And she looked absolutely stunning.

A Gown Comparison

Kate's dress

Designer: Sarah Burton

Fashion House: Alexander McQueen

Details: ivory satin, lace, 58 buttons, 8' 8" train

Cost: £250,000 (est)

Source: https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/6284875/kate-middleton-royal-wedding-dress-cost-designer/

Meghan's dress

Designer: Clare Waight Keller

Fashion House: Givenchy

Details: pure white double-bonded silk, 16.5 foot silk tulle hand embroidered veil

Cost: no reasonable estimate available - but despite being simple and unembellished the label and fabric are expected to make it a very costly gown even if we do not include the veil 

Source: http://time.com/5245809/meghan-markle-royal-wedding-dress/

Harry and Meghan...but mostly Meghan ;)

I was scanning through this BBC article on the Royal Wedding (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44172172) and felt compelled to type a few words...

Directly linked to the article is my first point.

Several paragraphs begin with points:-

• It's not that she is a commoner
• Nor is it that she is divorced
• Nor is it that Meghan is American
• But it is the fact that she is, in her own words, "biracial"

And then it goes on to emphasis "And there's more. She has (or had) a job! She has (or had) a public profile!" ...well, I don't think her racial identity is key - although I see that for the black and biracial communities this is a significant event - and I feel the BBC article has rather missed the cumulative aspect of all these points. Just as Meghan is black AND white she is also a commoner AND Divorced AND American AND an actress!!!

Commoners marrying into the British Royal Family isn't unusual; the aristocracy pool is limited. Foreigners are less common nowadays but again, no big deal. The divorcee aspect is more interesting as, combined with the fact that Meghan is American, it invites a comparison with Wallis Simpson.

Born Bessie Wallis Warfield in 1896 she was twice divorced. Her first marriage, to Earl (name, not title) Winfield Spencer lasted from 1916 to 1927. Incidentally, Earl and his 2nd wife (of 4) divorced in 1936. He died in 1950.

Her second marriage was to Ernest Aldrich Simpson, a second marriage following divorce for both parties. Ernest and Wallis were married from 1928-1937 when Wallis divorced him to marry Edward VIII, or the Duke of Windsor as he became when he abdicated in order to wed her. Whilst Ernest may seem a victim in this scenario it is worth noting that he married his third wife, Mary, that same year. Ernest died, widowing a fourth wife, in 1958.

Unlike Wallis however, Meghan has only been married once before - to Trevor Engelson, from 2011-2013 - and, again unlike Wallis, did not have to obtain a divorce to marry Prince Harry; she was already three years divorced by the time their relationship was established.

Possibly the single most significant detail is that Harry and Meghan are marrying at St George's Chapel, Windsor. In 2005 Harry's father, Prince Charles, married his stepmother, the once-divorced Camilla Parker-Bowles (nee Shand) in a civil ceremony at Windsor Guildhall followed by a blessing at St George's Chapel.

The denial of a church wedding to the heir to the throne marrying a divorcee (despite being divorced himself, although first wife Diana was already dead...this former-spouses-still-living seems significant; Camilla's ex husband is still living) was still a step up from Edward VIII being forced to abdicate. It is worth remembering though that Prince Harry's place on the accession list has been bumped down three times in recent years with the births of his nephews and niece; it may be that Harry marrying a divorcee, and in church, is less controversial not only because times are a'changin' but because he is so unlikely to ever take the throne - and with it the role as head of the church of England. All the same, times HAVE changed and we have moved on from the abdication crisis...and hopefully Camilla will be acknowledged as Queen Consort in due course ;)

Personally I don't think Meghan being biracial is of particular significance...is there any reason to expect a British Royal to only consider a white spouse?! Mixed marriages aren't especially noteworthy in British society...but I *AM* interested in the fact that she is from a 'broken home'.

Meghan was born in 1981 to Doria Loyce Ragland from her only marriage - to Thomas Markle, 1979 to their divorce in 1988. Thomas had been married before and has two children from that marriage - Thomas Markle, Jr. and Samantha Grant.

This alone is not new or especially significant. Diana Spencer, Harry's mother, was also from a broken home - her parents divorced when she was 8. Diana had a famously difficult relationship with her stepmother Raine (d. 2016). Similarly Sarah Ferguson, who married Prince Andrew, had parents who divorced when she was 15.

However, it is the behaviour of Meghan's family that sets her story apart.

Doria, her mother (who is black) has behaved impeccably. She has seemingly accepted advice from the palace and has supported her daughter's impending nuptials with grace and poise.

Thomas, her father (who is white) has been, in my humble opinion, a complete and utter twatfuck. He has seemingly accepted no advice from any quarter and is intent on making life difficult for his youngest child, aided and abetted by his two elder offspring. Between the three of them they have had plenty to say, especially to TMZ, little of it supportive. I am supremely unimpressed with Thomas Markle, Sr's public image. I do not hold the palace or the media accountable; he is a grown man who ought to realise what harm he is doing his daughter. If I humiliated one of my daughters like that I doubt either of them would ever speak to me again! It is utterly callous and selfish.

Despite family break ups the parents and siblings of Diana Spencer and Sarah Ferguson had the good sense (and good manners) to avoid making spectacles of themselves and embarrassing the brides-to-be in the international press. I feel deeply for Meghan in this situation but I also think this high profile mess will be of some benefit to other young people with divorced parents. While the promoted image is of divorcees who will still co-parent their child(ren) properly and considerately the reality is often very different with dead-beat or absentee parents who their children are likely better off without. And yes, I *AM* thinking of my ex and his non-existent role in raising our daughters. This hits home as I imagine one of my daughters asking their father to play a part in their wedding...only to be disappointed in the final stages of preparations.

The fact Meghan has had a career, particularly a high-profile one, before her marriage into the royal family is especially noteworthy.

She has (according to her Wikipedia page) worked as an actress (best known for her role as Rachel Zane in Suits), as a freelance calligrapher, and also ran her own lifestyle website called The Tig from 2014 to 2017.

Other celebrity royal brides include:

• Grace, Princess of Monaco was formerly Grace Kelly, Hollywood actress, before her 1956 to Rainier III.
• Queen Letizia of Spain was a divorced TV presenter before marrying then Crown Prince Felipe in 2004.
• Charlene, Princess of Monaco was born in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) and competed at the 2000 Olympic Games as a swimmer for South Africa. She married Albert II, Prince of Monaco (son of Grace Kelly) in 2011.

The idea that royal brides sacrifice their independence, their careers, their personal freedoms, their opinions and pretty much everything upon marriage has been popular with feminists and republicans alike. The idea that a successful, independent, self-proclaimed feminist such as Meghan Markle would be willing to make such a sacrifice (to me) suggests that the feminists and republicans are missing something. Maybe love is worth all the sacrifice; but maybe the platform royalty have is an opportunity to do real good in the world too. NOT that I'm suggesting she's marrying Harry for a position of power, merely that despite the restrictions of royal life it does have an advantage of profile - you only have to look at the charitable works of other royals to see what can be achieved; Harry's mother Diana did much for the campaign against landmines and did incalculable good for people living with HIV/AIDS, Harry has done much charitable work, particularly in founding the Invictus Games for disabled armed forces personnel and veterans. You can only imagine what a determined, educated woman like Meghan Markle might be able to achieve. Marriage is what you make of it. Think of it as restrictive and you will feel trapped and miserable; think of it as a set of new opportunities and (hopefully) it will be a whole different experience...says the terminally single potato person lol.

I wish Harry and Meghan all the best - both for their wedding tomorrow and in all that follows. I particularly hope that Thomas Sr's absence will not blight Meghan's big day. I find it especially touching that of all the people she could have asked to stand in his stead she chose to ask Prince Charles, her father-in-law-to-be, to accompany her down the aisle...as if she has already been fully accepted into the fold. I hope Doria plays a significant role tomorrow too, and maybe in the future as well - as a single mum I would rather like to see Doria become an honorary part of the establishment!

Princess Diana

As the 20th anniversary of her death approaches every creep with a story seems to be crawling out of the leaf litter to paint her as either a saint or innocent victim of a callous royal family. This is my take on it all.

Marriage and Divorce
I was only three when Charles and Diana married so I don't remember any of that. Virtually everyone seems to agree that their marriage was a bad idea from the outset but I think it is a tad unfair to lay all the blame at Charles' door. Just as my own ex was the one who (IMHO) didn't try and ultimately ended our relationship I can also acknowledge that, while I did my best, there was blame and responsibility on my side too. Just because Charles (like my ex) was the older partner doesn't mean their divorce was entirely his fault.
In this whole mess were Charles, his 'others', his family, Diana, her 'others', her family and the media.

My Feelings on Diana
As a child I recall wanting to be a princess. Nothing unusual in that. But when asked why I declared that I wanted to be able to throw up without getting told off. My parents had no sympathy for me and my childhood illness but especially the fact I got (and still do get) dreadfully car sick. Never once did they question their own wisdom in insistently driving me all over the place with the inevitable consequences. Basically I had caught wind of a story about Princess Diana's bulimia (an illness I also suffer) and was miffed she got sympathy and I got yelled at.
I was never a fan of Diana's though...

Her Death
I had a weird experience when Diana died...my brain just totally failed to accept it for a while. Especially odd as I didn't much like her. I was all 'why have the put dates under her picture like they do when someone dies?' and 'why are they using the past tense? Idiots' because I just wasn't processing it at all.
I may not have liked her but I was extremely sad that she'd died and left her boys without a mother. As a single mum myself that felt close to home. For all her fame and beauty and wealth she hadn't had it easy and I suppose I had hoped she would get a happily-ever-after.

The Royal Family
The whole flag at half mast thing...royal protocols had to be changed to appease the people who couldn't understand that it wasn't a thing. Pointless tbh.
Why should the Queen have led the national mourning? If she had she'd have been criticised for usurping the Spencer family's role. I thought it weird enough that Charles-her-ex went with Charles-her-brother to bring her body home. I would not want my ex near my dead body any more than my living one! Probably that was all public pressure and damage limitation; must've been unpleasant for her brother though...
Why should your ex mother-in-law pay for your protection detail after you cheated repeatedly shamed the family?! I dare say Diana could've afforded more than the one bodyguard...ultimately they were DIVORCED, she chose her path away from the royal family so leave them out of it!

Paparazzi
AHA! Here's the real bad guys of the mix. Who've got off exceedingly lightly IMHO.
It baffles me how the royal family come in for more of a bashing than the paps who chased her car until the crash...and then took photos of her as she lay dying.
Her driver, Henri Paul, got the official blame. More than 3 times over the French drink driving limit (over twice the British) and with prescription meds in his system it is possible the end result would have been the same...however, driving at over twice the speed limit was as a DIRECT CONSEQUENCE of the paparazzi pursuit. There is, however, speculation that Paul signaled the paps...even if so that does not negate their role in a high speed chase which put other lives at risk.

Camilla
Now, I like Camilla. She's good for Charles. William and Harry seem to have a good relationship with her. That's all matters. And yes, I will call her my Queen when the time comes.
Was she to blame for Charles and Diana's divorce? No. Or at least not to any significant degree.
Was she to blame for Diana's death? Hell no.

I really do find it distasteful that all this is getting dragged up again. Talk about her work for HIV awareness, land mine charities etc. Talk about her being a 'style icon' if you must. But leave the conspiracy theories and royalty bashing out of it.
>:(
Rant over.