A Hairy Problem

I woke up this morning to the following article on the BBC News website:

"Alopecia patients call for NHS to fund real hair wigs"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-46194962

1) Why are people with alopecia being 'treated' on the NHS??? A condition of hair loss is not an illness and there is no treatment. 

2) Wigs are purely cosmetic and the NHS should not imho be funding things that do not improve a person's health. 

As synthetic wigs ARE provided on the NHS it's not like there's nothing available for those who can't afford such things. NHS glasses used to be ugly af - if you wanted something nicer you had to pay for it. If you couldn't afford it you were stuck with functional. The voucher system on prescription specs has helped with this and maybe could be applied to wigs...but there are opticians on every high street in a way that wig suppliers just aren't. Not to mention the shortfall would be drastic and still price a lot of people out of real-hair wigs...but that does not mean the NHS should foot the bill.

"For many people with alopecia, wearing a wig is an essential part

of managing the psychological impact of losing their hair;

those who wear wigs for medical necessity

don't see their wig as an optional luxury."

3) As the impact of alopecia is psychological the treatment should also be psychological. However, as much as I feel for the mum in the article whose teenage son hasn't received any counselling for his hair loss I would point out that even after a suicide attempt many kids have to wait ages to see a counsellor. IF there's even a referral, that is; my kid didn't get counselling for 6 years!!! OBVIOUSLY that's not saying one psychological issue is more important than another but the system is already unfit for purpose - spend NHS money on improving counselling services for ALL conditions and you save money on dozens of other things; such as A&E visits, addiction services, eating disorder clinics, and maybe even wigs. 

Usually I argue for treating the cause, not the symptom but there is no known cause for alopecia so there's no choice but to go after the symptom...the symptom is lack of hair so address that with a wig, but that doesn't address the real issue which is psychological impact. Wigs are a band-aid solution, fixing nothing.

"Your hair is the first thing people see...

I've always had long hair, it's part of my identity."

We are socially conditioned to think that people (particularly women and younger men) should have hair while older men get a pass, baldness even being seen as attractive in some instances. It is cultural too - shaved heads being normal in many cultures. Addressing the social norms of hair and the psychological impact of losing it would be far more helpful in the long run. Those with baldness shouldn't feel obliged to hide it.

Taking the idea of hair being 'essential' to the extreme, you could in theory argue that if hair loss is to be treated as a medical issue then hairdressing, grooming products, razors etc should logically be available on the NHS - for those with conditions such as male-pattern baldness or excessive body hair for example. Actually, that's a bad example as male-pattern baldness and excessive body hair usually are related to hormone levels which could actually be treated medically...

For myself I could wrangle an argument that being stuck with my natural hair colour is detrimental to my psychological well-being. True but ludicrous. But so is arguing for a wig because your hair is your identity. Just because you've always had something doesn't mean you will, or can or should, always have that thing. You can get false teeth on the NHS cos you need them to talk and eat properly. You can get functional prosthetic limbs on the NHS but cosmetic ones cost extra because they are not medically necessary. What function does hair even have?! Answer is: none at all. 

Next issue: women from poor countries being targeted for their hair.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/ugly-truth-behind-multi-million-7513507

Yes, this particular article from 2016 cites the beauty industry's demand for hair but it would be naive to think there is a clear line separating cosmetic hair pieces from wigs for those with alopecia or cancer. Human hair has to come from somewhere and most of the time it's poor women being exploited. There have also been stories of women being attacked and their hair cut off - some baseless rumours, others may be for motives such as humiliation - but in a world where human hair has monetary worth such things are liable to happen.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be an industry based on human hair but I'm saying there is an ethical argument against the NHS buying into it.

In the western world we see altruistic kids having their hair cut off for people with cancer but that's just a strand in a big ol' hairball. I don't think many people really consider where their real hair wigs and extensions actually come from.

In Les Miserables by Victor Hugo (1862) a desperate and destitute Fantine sells first her only possession of worth - a locket - then her hair and teeth, then finally falls into prostitution; scenes which are deeply distressing to a modern audience - be it the book, musical or the 2012 film (with Anne Hathaway winning an Oscar for her portrayal of Fantine). Set the best part of 200 years ago you'd hope that such events were firmly in the past but clearly they are not. No 21st century woman should have those life experiences.

Most of us accept the idea that the NHS is underfunded but with a limited set of resources should this even be open for discussion?! Essential services that save lives HAVE to come first. The NHS should be about what you NEED not what you WANT. Waiting lists can appalling - months waiting for cancer testing and ECGs. My mum waited 4.5 months after discharge from hospital for a physiotherapy referral - she now refuses to go because it has been 'too long'. That will inevitably impact her life expectancy as her mobility continues to deteriorate. These are things people NEED - not prettier wigs.

One more point before my rant comes to an end: IF the NHS were to supply real hair wigs who would be responsible for the products and care required to maintain them?! 

Bring My Bones Back Home, I Don't Need Them Any More

And bury me all alone, keep my memory.

The title, and that line, are from an Ashestoangels' song "Bones Part 1" from A Trauma Shared. This is a very important song to me as it is one of three tracks I tend to play on loop from that album. The others are 'One Last Glance' and 'Endlessly'. They've been on loop for me 7 months tomorrow...since my mum's stroke. And that is why those words seemed so apt for this blog post.

This link should take you to a BBC video 'Where's the right place to bury your parents? - Deciding where to bury your parents if they were not born in the UK'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/stories-46212155/deciding-where-to-bury-your-parents-if-they-were-not-born-in-the-uk

Case studies: Tosin lost her parents in quick succession, both aged 52. Her Nigerian born dad was buried with his dad and brother in London - they did not know his wishes; her mother was cremated and scattered in 'her father's land' - also Nigeria - according to her wishes. Ndu had to call elders in Nigeria to approve burying his father in London.

"I just did the best that I thought I could" - Tosin

This is a hugely important point. If your loved one did not leave specific instructions for the disposal of their mortal remains it is okay to do what is right for YOU. Do not assume that their not giving those instructions was because they left it too late to have that conversation; if it was that important to them they would have said or left a document with their directions. Tosin's decision for her dad is also based on decisions within his family - if the UK was a good enough final resting place for his close kin there's no great reason to suspect it wasn't good enough for him. Additionally, despite her dad dying first Tosin's mum was clear she wanted her ashes to go home to Nigeria. Do not feel bad about splitting up a couple who have died. If they wanted to be buried together fair enough but if the last surviving wants to be elsewhere then that is right too...

...which is not to say there are right and wrong answers here. Honouring someone's express wishes are, I suppose paramount, but where those wishes are absent, unclear, or unable to be fulfilled an executive decision must be made. And while you can take your lead from family precedent you can also do what is right for you.

Tosin also speaks of the fact she has a place to visit for her dad and Ndu agrees that this was an aspect of his decision for his father. Some funerary rites are for the deceased - such as ancient Egyptian mummification or the Catholic last rites - but most are for the living, a chance to say goodbye, to mourn, to let go - these include most funeral and memorial services, wakes and tombs. This is why, in my humble opinion, it has to be about what the immediate family want: it's THEIR goodbye more than it is the deceased's last hurrah. 

I have never yet had to make these decisions, and my parents are UK born and bred, but here's my take:

My parents went on holidays for a while after I'd grown up and left home and I was given instructions on what to do if they died out there - I was to have them cremated. Repatriating remains was a ridiculous waste of money and I was absolutely NOT to do that. My parents' have a VERY practical take on this.
I can understand the need to repatriate remains when someone has died outside their native land whether on work, holiday or, historically, via the slave trade. However, if someone took the decision to live their life in another country...well, maybe it depends WHY you decided that. If it was for work or a partner maybe you always wanted to go home. Or maybe you migrated as a child and the choice to not return 'home' wasn't really viable.
My parents have lived most of their lives within a radius of just a few miles - is that because they are deeply connected to the place or is that just happenstance? Happenstance seems most likely.

My maternal grandparents died close together in 2000. My mum fell apart and I was told to stay away, which I respected. However, both my grandparents were cremated and scattered so there is no goodbye, no paying my respects.

My paternal grandparents are a different story. My grandfather died long before I was born and was buried. I only plucked up the courage to ask to visit his grave after my other grandparents died as it suddenly felt like a terrible omission. A few years after that my nan also died. Despite 38 years of widowhood she was buried with him. Again I wasn't welcome for the funeral but I have visited since and seen the new combined headstone.

Meanwhile I have been to two funerals ever. The first was my cousin Allister in 2016; his was a church service followed by cremation. His ashes were scattered at a favourite spot. I remember thinking, somewhat inappropriately, that my kids had better not try this kind of a send off for me as it would be pitiful in comparison. Allister's was standing room only - he had lots of family and friends, colleagues and running mates - my turnout would be about 5 people. Maybe. The second was my great aunt Ben (Rosalind Brenda by birth). Hers was a simple crematorium service with maybe a dozen or so attendees.

My parents have always talked about death but neither has made much in the way of specific plans. Not from an unwillingness to talk but from an "I don't care, I'll be dead" mindset; but both decidedly prefer cremation. My mum has a prepaid funeral plan and as she has more family she'll need some form of service. I'd prefer church although I know that's not her...so most likely it'll be a crematorium. My dad isn't close to his surviving family and he's a no frills kind of guy so direct cremation seems likely. If at all possible I'd like to keep a funeral home out of the proceedings - I'd like to shroud them and so forth myself.

But then there's what to do with their ashes...

Once upon a gazillion years ago, when my parents were still together, my dad expressed the desire that I should chuck a handful of my mum under a passing bus...I find myself wondering how many handfuls there'll be...*mutters darkly* I certainly wouldn't mind chucking some of him under a bus.

I'd like to bury at least part of their ashes somewhere - not because I want to keep them when they're gone cos that's kinda weird and it's not like we're a close family anyway - I just don't like the idea of being completely gone. I'd like there to be an inscribed stone where I can lay flowers and tell my grandkids what annoying gits they could be. That's the sort of thing I would want for myself...a stone that could be visited intermittently and ultimately forgotten and when the weather has removed the inscription it'll be done.

Although, for my dad, he's been talking a lot about a place where he spent summers as a kid. I kept trying to talk him into going back for a visit but I doubt he ever will. I offered to go with him / drag him kicking and screaming ...but now I'm caring for my mum I can't. I think I'd like to take his ashes there.

I know I'll have to make these decisions sooner rather than later. Along with stupid, unimportant decisions like readings and music. That said, I'm kind of glad those decisions will be mine. Having specific directions and disliking them or failing to adhere to them would be so unpleasant.

Second Sight Second Hand

Tonight I was watching an old episode of Hamish Macbeth with my mum.  The one where Alex dies (Season 2 Episode 4; Radio Lochdubh; orig. air date 14 April 1996).  Hamish's sidekick TV John , an experienced seer, encounters a woman who has been having premonitions - they connect and he sees Alex's death through her vision.

This second hand second sight made me wonder...such things exist in my family and we've compared notes of premonitions but nothing quite so useful as to see through each others' eyes.  It might be rather useful, if disturbing, if we could figure out a way to do such a thing.

According to Wikipedia "There is no scientific evidence that second sight exists. Reports of second sight are known only from anecdotal evidence given after the fact".

Hmmmm.

There are a couple of problems with that statement:

• Seeing the future is never 'scientific' - a chain of events can lead to a certain outcome but any number of interventions to alter the course of things could occur. Just because the prediction did not come to pass does not mean that was not the outcome that was right when it was foretold.
• Reports are NOT only anecdotal nor only 'after the fact; people do tell their predictions or write them down - however, given the nature of these things predictions can be unpleasant or little believed.

 Take this example:

Three weeks before my cousin Allister's death from cancer I was so certain of the specific date I tweeted it.  However, not wanting to alarm family members I was very vague about it.  Indeed there is only my word and that of my daughters (who I told in full) to say what this tweet meant.  But honestly, how likely are you to say publicly that X will die on date Y?  Not exactly polite, no mater how sure you are.  And if I had forseen his brother's fatal accident an intervention may have been possible - I would have tried to tell HIM, not the world.  Incidentally, I favourited my own tweet so as I could find it again (I tweet a LOT) if it proved correct.

Then there's the fact Allister had terminal cancer...his death was no surprise although, not being a close relation, I had no idea the end was particularly nigh.  The prediction could be put down to chance although I remain unconvinced that could be the case.  But it also fits with my ideas of futures being changeable - there was little to interfere with his death occurring at any given moment unlike an accident such as the fictional Alex.  

Despite having no news of a particularly ominous nature the weeks leading to Allister's death were especially tense.  My parents and I stopped phoning each other as we prepared for The Call.  For me that came when my mum rang a little after 7pm on the 21st.  I swore at the phone and started crying before I answered it.

A more recent example was Sunday 15th April this year.  As my mum left my house I turned to my elder daughter, tears in my eyes, and said something along the lines of "I feel like I won't have my mum much longer"...27 hours later my stepdad called to report a problem - my mum had FINALLY answered her phone but he couldn't understand her.  It turned out she'd had a severe stroke.

My mother's still alive but in some ways I lost her that night - she's living with me now, I am her carer.  I have already lost the sound of her voice in my memory...they say it's the first memory to go.  I still feel like I won't have her for much longer but I don't know how much of that might be 'wishful thinking' - her quality of life is not so good, and she is very unhappy.

Who is to believe I foresaw this catastrophe?  If I'd had the idea it would be a stroke I would have been over at her flat, that had actually been the plan until I asked her for Sunday lunch instead... If I had been there to see her collapse perhaps the sodding doctors would've believed that it was a stroke and treated her - instead they insisted it wasn't a stroke and she wasn't diagnosed until the damage was permanent.  As creeptastic as I find my meagre psychic 'gift' I wish it was stronger so as to be of more use.

Obviously as I believe I have seen things before they happen you'll never get me to entertain the idea of coincidence or a 'lucky' guess.  If my mum or my daughters were to give me a warning I would heed it, no questions asked. 

I don't expect any warnings I give to be heeded but I would give them anyway - I'd rather be wrong than right.

NOTE

Just thought of a second hand example. My mum was once told her fortune and that she would die in her mid 50s. As she'll be 74 soon that clearly did not come to pass. However, in her mid 50s she suffered a DVT with pulmonary emboli; a condition that would have been fatal when the prediction was made. I'm not convinced the broken ankle that triggered it all off was a fixed point in time but who knows?!

My mum used the example as one of inaccuracy whereas I see it as a possible future that was averted. The explanation of 'anecdote' only works if the person reporting it believes in the prediction, surely?

9 weeks plus three? four?! I lose count...

Monday 16th April to Thursday 21st June

It's just the early hours of the 21st BUT...my mum is coming home today!!! I am roughly equal parts excited, relieved and terrified.

It's a new chapter of all our lives. It's tremendous that we finally made it to this point. But I am totally aware of how difficult this is likely to be. I just got my life back after raising my kids, I was enjoying my new-found freedoms...and now it's gone. Not gonna lie, that makes me sad. I was going to Bristol to see Ashestoangels on Sunday night and now that's gone. This last year I went to TVAES lectures...now that's out too.

I know it's pretty selfish but I never had much of a life. I went from being a kid to a teen mum and then after a brief midlife crisis I'm gonna be a full-time carer. No career, no relationships. It's difficult.

Day Sixty...I think?

It has been eight and a half weeks since my mum was taken into hospital following a severe stroke affecting both hemispheres of her brain.

My mum is doing okay and a couple of days ago we had a home assessment to see what my mum's needs will be...that went really well as the house was considered very suitable and they think mum can come home ahead of the ballpark "early July" we were previously told. In fact, it might be at the end of next week!

On the downside we're not getting a lot of support. The home physiotherapy service has already notified us there's likely to be a very long wait and, despite my mum only being able to walk very short distances with a frame and me not driving, she hasn't even been deemed in need of a wheelchair! Bloody ridiculous IMHO.

My cancer scare may yet turn out to be nothing (please keep everything crossed for me!) as my smear test came back normal. No idea what on earth it could be but personally I'm hoping for it to be something menopause related. Yes, I'm 'only' 40 but it's been a very real possibility since surgery when I was 29. The colposcopy is booked for the same day my mum's big meeting to arrange her discharge is scheduled. 

So that's the good(ish) news. On the more difficult side we have the fact I left my job almost a week ago. Unscheduled. I had given notice but a change of computer system and being expected to learn all these new procedures for the sake of a handful more shifts got me stressed out of my gourd until I felt I had no choice but to walk out.

It wasn't bad timing either as the next day my mum had a fall in the hospital and has been really shaken and upset ever since. She is TERRIFIED they'll find a reason she can't come home. It has been a great relief to know I can be there every day to support her.

Then there's the thing where my dad, who is my next door neighbour and my mum's ex partner (by about 14 years at this point), got mortally offended that he "wasn't invited*" to the home assessment mentioned before that he's now not talking to me and hasn't been back to visit my mum. Absolutely pathetic! Unfortunately, the home assessment was nothing to do with him, not to mention that my mum didn't want him there and neither did I...also, he didn't help me prepare for it and actually got in my way quite a lot.

Not that he has to help me as an adult or my mum as his ex the sudden change of heart has made things a good bit more difficult. I kind of hope it's just that the stress of the whole situation has got to him and he'll come around but he has a loooong track record of this sh*t so I won't hold my breath.

*Incidentally, he has never invited me over to his house (assuming we can exclude him asking me to check his emails and the like) and that's INCLUDING the 20 years we lived in Somerset. All the times I visited it was me asking if we could come up.

So yeah, that's where we're at. My mum has times when she wishes she hadn't survived but as someone I know went through that just last week - he mother passed just 2 days after a stroke - I am immensely grateful my mum is still with me and with as much of her abilities and personality intact as she has. We could have lost her in more ways than just by death.

Not gonna lie though, this is by far the most stressful experience of my life...I can only imagine how much worse it must be for my mum.

UPDATE
The colposcopy was fine - no idea what was causing the severe, heavy, prolonged, non-menstrual bleeding but it may have been stress related as it turned out one of my daughters was having the exact same thing!

Anti Labels

Facebook, On This Day 24th May 2015:

I just found myself on Stedman Graham's Wikipedia page and I need to share this...

"Stedman Graham gives inspirational speeches at schools. His driving question is "Who are you?", questioning peoples self-identity. Ironically when asked "Who are you?" at a recent speech in early 2015, he didn't have anything to say."

I don't think there's ANYTHING ironic in that actually. How do you answer the question "who are you?" without using LABELS??? I see people use labels in their Twitter bios...I do it myself - goth, student, mum - but is that who I am? What I am maybe... Who are you...are you a colour, a religion, a nationality, a gender, a sexuality, a set of pronouns? Are you a JOB??? Perhaps the best possible answer is enigmatic silence.

In a similar vein...

Facebook, On This Day 24th May 2017:

[Shared post] 

Imprisoned by their barbaric, primitive beliefs,

they hate their lives & envy our freedom & joy.

Fuck them. Carry on. Have fun.

They lose. 

- Facebook post by Ricky Gervais, 24th May 2017;

regarding the Manchester Arena Attack

[My response]

This makes me all kinds of uncomfortable.

Are you talking about terrorism or Islam here? Is that deliberate ambiguity to 'disguise' Islamophobia? From the comments I see it's how a fair proportion of people are interpreting it. At a time like this be careful how you phrase stuff or you become part of the problem.

Again with the 'them' and 'us' mentality. Who are 'they'? Who are 'we'? 

This guy was British. He was one of us. His freedoms and our freedoms were the same. We need to acknowledge this.

We're all PEOPLE. Divide and conquer is not the solution. Should we not aim for unity and dialogue instead of emphasising difference?

The same topic in two very different posts two years apart.

Labels.

We use them all the time and they're not an inherently bad thing. We use them to understand ourselves and each other. BUT all the labels we use DIVIDE us. They emphasise how we differ from one another. Now, variety is the spice of life and we should not be afraid or ashamed to be different...but 'us and them' is always bad. People who are not as we are should not be feared or hated.

I’m Tibetan, I’m Buddhist and I’m the Dalai Lama,

but if I emphasize these differences it sets me apart

and raises barriers with other people.

What we need to do is to pay more attention to the ways in which we are

the same as other people.

- Tweet by His Holiness The Dalai Lama, 21 May 2018

So, who are YOU Heggie Speller?

• White / British...with about one 16th Irish if anyone cares about such things
• Church of England heritage but Pagan tendencies
• Ordained minister (I looked up online ordination and did the thing. Ooopsie!) 
• University graduate
• Single mother (one at uni, one graduate...PROUD MOMMA!)
• Cat momma (not at uni but still proud)
• Dead-end job, soon to be a carer (which could also be defined as a dead-end job...)
• Fat
• Vegan
• Tattooed
• Agender
• Straight but terminally single
• Artist with a thing about coelacanths
• Loves alt rock and Agatha Christie books

Should any of that matter to anyone? I really don't think so. Most of it doesn't matter a helluva lot to me!

Use labels wisely...and sparingly. Use them to place yourself (and others) in the world not apart from it.

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/